Sample Benchmark Report - Sway...

G l o b a l R e a l E s t a t eS u s t a i n a b i l i t y B e n c h m a r k

Sample Benchmark ReportGRESB

GRESB benchmark report 2014

DADATE:TE: September 15 2014 21:08 UTCSeptember 15 2014 21:08 UTC✓

© 2014 GRESB BV

Table of Contents

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

GRESB Quadrant Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

GRESB Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Entity & Peer Group Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Reporting Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

MANAGEMENT

Sustainability Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sustainability Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

POLICY & DISCLOSURE

Sustainability Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Sustainability Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

RISKS & OPPORTUNITIES

Bribery & Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Energy EfSciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Water EfSciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Environmental Fines & Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

MONITORING & EMS

Environmental Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Data Management Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Monitoring Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Retail, High Street - Energy Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Retail, High Street - GHG Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Retail, High Street - Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Retail, High Street - Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

OfSce - Energy Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

OfSce - GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

OfSce - Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

OfSce - Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

CERTIFICATIONS & ENERGY RATINGS

Retail, High Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

OfSce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 3 of 56

Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Tenants/Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS

Sustainability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Community Enagagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Materials and CertiScations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Energy EfSciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Building Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Supply Chain Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Community Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Page 4 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC

Key Highlights Pa r ticipation: 2014

L ega l Status: Non-listed / Value Added

Contact:

ACTIVITY

Management of standing investments and newconstruction and major renovation projects

PEER GROUP

Region: Sample Region

Type: Sample Peergroup

P e e r s: 43

GRESB QuadrantModel

GRESB Scores

This E ntity P e e r Group Compa r ison

Overall Score 44-PEER

50AVERAGE

GLOBAL

47AVERAGE

Management & Policy

weight: 30.2% 49-PEER

60AVERAGE

GLOBAL

54AVERAGE

Implementation & Measurement


46AVERAGE

GLOBAL

43AVERAGE

Development Score 32-PEER

55AVERAGE

GLOBAL

51AVERAGE

Impl e m e ntation & Me asu re m e nt

Man

agem

ent &

Pol

icy

0 50 100

0

50

100

This EntityPeer Group AveragePeer GroupGRESB AverageGreen StarsGRESB Universe

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100


Ranking

Dist r ibution of Scores

Sample Region /Sample Peergroup

Peer Group

33rd

OUT OF 43

B o tt o mQUARTILE

All GRESB Scores 364 th

OUT OF 637

L o w e rQUARTILE

Sample Region

Region194 th

OUT OF 326

L o w e rQUARTILE

Sample Region / Non-listed

Region / Legal Structure4 th

OUT OF 10

U p p e rQUARTILE

Value Added

Investment Strategy58 th

OUT OF 122

U p p e rQUARTILE

New Construction & Major Renovations

Entities in New Construction & Major Renovations222nd

OUT OF 274

B o tt o mQUARTILE

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Mean

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Mean

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Mean

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Mean

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Mean

ScoreFr

eque

ncy

0 100

Mean


Aspects

AspectWWeight in GRESB Scoreight in GRESB Scoree Score P e e r Group Compa r ison

Management


75AVERAGE

GLOBAL

69AVERAGE

Policy & Disclosure


70AVERAGE

GLOBAL

57AVERAGE

Risks & Opportunities


70AVERAGE

GLOBAL

60AVERAGE

Monitoring & EMS


53AVERAGE

GLOBAL

53AVERAGE

Performance Indicators


29AVERAGE

GLOBAL

31AVERAGE

Building Certi+cation &Benchmarking

weight: 10.9%73-

PEER

35AVERAGE

GLOBAL

30AVERAGE

Stakeholder Engagement


50AVERAGE

GLOBAL

45AVERAGE

New Construction & MajorRenovations

weight: 0%22-

PEER

36AVERAGE

GLOBAL

41AVERAGE

25

50

75

100

50

61

39

56

3473

3022

Management

Policy &Disclosure

Risks &Opportunities

Monitoring& EMS

PerformanceIndicators

BuildingCertiScations

&Benchmarking

StakeholderEngagement

NewConstruction

& MajorRenovations

8

This Entity Peer Average

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100

Score

Freq

uenc

y

0 100


Entity & Peer GroupCharacteristics

THIS ENTITY

Count r y: DiversiSed

P rope r ty Type: Sample Peergroup

L ega l Status:

Tota l GAV: $1.38 Billion

PEER GROUP (43 ENTITIES)

Count r ies: Netherlands, Belgium

P rope r ty Type: Sample Peergroup

L ega l Status: Listed, Non-listed,

Ave r age GAV: $1.11 Billion

Country CompostionCountry Compostion

[50%][50%] Netherlands

[50%][50%] Belgium

Peer Country CompostionPeer Country Compostion

[92%][92%] Netherlands

[6%][6%] Belgium

[1%][1%] Germany

PrProperty Toperty Typesypes

[50%][50%] Retail, High Street

[50%][50%] OfSce

Peer PrPeer Property Toperty Typesypes

[36%][36%] Residential

[26%][26%] OfSce

[16%][16%] Retail, High Street

[7%][7%] Retail, ShoppingCenter

[6%][6%] Industrial,Distribution Warehouse

[3%][3%] Healthcare

[3%][3%] Other

[1%][1%] Retail, Warehouse

[1%][1%] Industrial,Manufacturing

Management ContrManagement Controlol

[100%][100%] Managed

Peer Management ContrPeer Management Controlol

[91%][91%] Managed

[9%][9%] Indirect

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 data conIdentiality,the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2014 GRESBSurvey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company orfund’s actual Report.

“


ManagementSustainabilityObjectives

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Does the entity have speciGc sustainability objectives?

The objectives are

Communicated objectives

[NO POINTS]

Sustainability objectives incorporated in overall business strategy

Who is responsible for implementing the entity’s sustainability objectives? (multiple answerspossible)

Q1.1 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 95%

Publicly available 48%

Not publicly available 46%

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 dataconIdentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2014 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may containinconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

“

No 4%

Q1.2 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 90%

No 4%

Not applicable 4%

Q2 POINTS: 3/3

Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the coreresponsibility

Name: John Smith [ACCEPTED]

Job title: Head of Sustainability [ACCEPTED]

69%

Employee(s) for whom sustainability is one of the responsibilities 93%

External consultants/manager

Name of the organization: Your Sustainability Provider [ACCEPTED]

34%

Other 23%

None of the above 4%


SustainabilityDecision-Making

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Does the organization have a sustainability taskforce or committee that is applicable to theentity?

Members of this taskforce or committee are:

The entity's most senior decision-maker on sustainability is part of:

PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers

[49%][49%] Board of Directors

[44%][44%] Senior Management Team

[5%][5%] Fund/portfolio managers

[2%][2%] Not applicable

[0%][0%] (no answer provided)

Process for informing most senior decision-maker of sustainability performance

Q3 POINTS: 2/2

Yes 93%

Board of Directors 30%

Senior Management Team 37%

Fund/portfolio managers 74%

Asset managers 81%

Property managers 41%

External consultants

Name of the organization: Your SustainabilityProvider

[ACCEPTED]

25%

Other 60%

No 6%

Q4 POINTS: 1/1

[ACCEPTED]Name: Donna Jones

[ACCEPTED]Job title: COO

Q5 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 81%

No 9%

Not applicable 9%

Q6 POINTS: 0/3


Percentage of Peers

Sustainability factors included in annual performance targets

Yes 81%

No 18%

Policy & DisclosureSustainabilityDisclosure

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Does the organization disclose its sustainability performance?

Applicable reporting level

Aligned with



[9%][9%] GRI

[7%][7%] INREV

Independent third party review of sustainability performance disclosure

Q7.1 POINTS: 1.5/5

Yes 95%

Section in Annual Report 81%

Stand-alone sustainability report(s)

Evidence provided

16%

Entity 0%

Investment manager 16%

Group 0%

Integrated Report 39%

Dedicated section on the corporate website 72%

Section in entity reporting to investors 60%

Other 48%

No 4%

Q7.2 POINTS: 2/2

Yes 67%


Selection:

using



[2%][2%] ISAE 30001

Section in Annual Report 32%

Stand-alone sustainability report 9%

Externally checked by 6%

Externally veriIed by 0%

Externally assured by

Your sustainability Proivder [ACCEPTED]

2%

Integrated Report 37%

Section in entity reporting to investors 9%

Other 4%

No 30%

Not applicable 2%

SustainabilityPolicies

Percentage of Peers

Policies on environmental issues

Environmental issues included

Q8 POINTS: 3/3

Yes

Evidence provided

97%

Energy consumption/management 97%

GHG emissions/management 86%

Water consumption/management 88%

Waste management 81%

Climate change 30%

Other 23%

No 2%

Q9 POINTS: 0/1


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Policies addressing risks of exposure to bribery and corruption


[95%][95%] Yes

[5%][5%] No

Stakeholder engagement policy

Stakeholders included

Employee policy

Issues included

Q10 POINTS: 1/2

Yes

Evidence provided

90%

Employees 81%

Tenants/occupiers 88%

Supply chain 39%

Community 20%

Local community 20%

Investors 83%

Consumers 16%

Other 4%

No 9%

Q11 POINTS: 1/1

Yes

Evidence provided

95%

Diversity 90%

Remuneration 95%

Performance & career development 88%

Health & safety 93%

Cyber security 69%


Other 18%

No 4%

Risks &OpportunitiesBribery & Corruption

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Assessment addressing risks of exposure to bribery and corruption

Process:

[NO POINTS]

Systems and procedures to implement bribery and corruption policy

Is the organization involved in any legal cases regarding corrupt practices?

Q12 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 100%

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 dataconIdentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2014 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

“

No 0%

Q13 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 93%

No 4%

Not applicable 2%

Q14 Not scored

Yes 0%

No 100%

Risk Assessments

Percentage of Peers

Sustainability risk assessment new acquisitions

Q15.1 POINTS: 2/2

Yes

Evidence provided

95%


Percentage of Peers

Issues included

Sustainability risk assessment standing investments

Issues included

Use of sustainability risk assessment outcomes

[NO POINTS]

Energy eKciency 95%

Water eKciency 81%

Building safety and materials 88%

Building certiIcations and energy ratings 83%

Environmental 86%

Climate 39%

Climate change 23%

Socio-economic 69%

Regulatory 72%

Other 13%

No 0%

Not applicable 4%

Q15.2 POINTS: 0.3/2

Yes 90%

Environmental 88%

Climate 41%

Climate change 18%

Socio-economic 62%

Regulatory 72%

Other 39%


“

No 6%

Not applicable 2%

Energy EfSciency Q16 POINTS: 0/3


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Technical building assessments for energy efGciency opportunities

Measures to improve energy efGciency

Describe the measures using the table below.

Measure % portfolio covered

Estimated

savings

MWh

Estimated

ROI (%)Scope

HVAC upgrades/ replacements ≥50%, <75% 5 13% Whole building

Smart grid/smart building

technologies≥25%, <50% 3 8% Common areas

Yes 93%

No 6%

Q17 POINTS: 4/4

Yes 93%

No 6%

Not applicable 0%

Water EfSciency

Percentage of Peers

Measures to improve water efGciency

Q18 POINTS: 0/3

Yes 67%

No 30%

Not applicable 2%

Environmental Fines& Penalties

Percentage of Peers

Environmental Gnes or penalties

Q19 Not scored

Yes 2%

No 97%


Monitoring & EMSEnvironmentalManagementSystems

Percentage of Peers

Environmental Management System (EMS)


[77%][77%] Yes

[23%][23%] No

Alignment, veriGcation or certiGcation of EMS

Q20.1 POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Q20.2 POINTS: 0.3/1.5

Yes

Evidence provided

13%

Aligned with 2%

Externally veriIed by

EMS Systems Europe [ACCEPTED]

using: self deIned standard [NOT ACCEPTED]

4%

Externally certiIed by 6%

No 65%

Not applicable 20%

Data ManagementSystems

Percentage of Peers

Data Management System (DMS)

_


[53%][53%] Developed internally

[23%][23%] External system

[16%][16%] Tailor-made internal system developed by a third party


Aspects included

Q21.1 POINTS: 2.8/4

Yes

Percentage of portfolio covered: 26%

93%

Energy consumption/management 93%


Percentage of Peers

Alignment, veriGcation or certiGcation of DMS

Water consumption/management 34%

GHG emissions/management 41%

Waste management 25%

Refrigerants 2%

Other 2%

No 6%

Q21.2 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 60%

No 25%

Not applicable 13%

MonitoringConsumption

Percentage of Peers

Monitoring of energy consumption

Frequency


[47%][47%] Annualy

[21%][21%] 15 min

[9%][9%] 60 min

[9%][9%] Monthly

[5%][5%] Quarterly


[2%][2%] Daily

[2%][2%] Weekly

Type

22.0 POINTS: 2/3

Yes 95%

Automatic meter readings

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by Joorarea: 15%

79%

Based on invoices


Percentage of Peers

Monitoring of water consumption

Frequency


[63%][63%] Annualy


[9%][9%] Quarterly

[5%][5%] Monthly

[5%][5%] Semi-annual

[2%][2%] 15 min

Type


74%

Manual–visual readings 53%

Provided by the tenant 18%

Other 9%

No 4%

Not applicable 0%

23.0 POINTS: 0.8/2

Yes 83%

Automatic meter readings 32%

Based on invoices


58%

Manual–visual readings 53%

Provided by the tenant 16%

Other 4%

No 16%

Not applicable 0%


PerformanceIndicatorsSummary

POINTS: 3/3POINTS: 3/3

Performance Highlights

ENERGY CONSUMPTIONPOINTS: 6.1/15

Energy Consumption: externally checked by

Your Sustainability Provider.

2012 2013

Retail, High StreetOfSce

0 MwH

5000 MwH

10000 MwH

15000 MwH

20000 MwH

25000 MwH

GHG EMISSIONSPOINTS: 0.3/3

2012 2013


0 T

50 T

100 T

150 T

200 T

WATER CONSUMPTIONPOINTS: 0.9/3

2012 2013


0 m3

250000 m3

500000 m3

750000 m3

1000 000 m3

1250 000 m3

WASTE MANAGEMENTPOINTS: 0.4/4

2012 2013


0 T

20000 T

40000 T

60000 T

Targets

Area Target typeLong-term

target

Baseline

yearEnd year

2013

target

Peer avg

target

Are these targets

communicated

externally?

Energy Consumption Like-for-like 23% 2009 2018 2.3% 1.81% Yes

GHG Emissions Like-for-like 18% 2009 2018 3% 2.5% Yes

Water consumption Like-for-like 21% 2009 2018 2.5% 0.78% Yes

Waste diverted from landSll Absolute 25% 2009 2018 4% 0.35% No


Area Target typeLong-term

target

Baseline

yearEnd year

2013

target

Peer avg

target

Are these targets

communicated

externally?

Other 0.21%


PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetEnergy Consumption

POINTS: 2.8/8POINTS: 2.8/8


Data Coverage

† Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region

Directly managed assets make up 60.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.

Indirectly managed assets make up 40.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.

Change in Like-for-like Energy Consumption between 2012-2013

1.0 % OVERALL DECREASE

OVERALL

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-1 %

This

Entity

-2.6 %

Group

Average

-2.9 %

Global

Average

MANAGED

-6.2 %

This

Entity

-3.3 %

Group

Average

-2.6 %

Global

Average

INDIRECT

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

5.3 %

This

Entity

3.3 %

Group

Average

-0.1 %

Global

Average

Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region



Impact of Change

Energy Consumption RReductioneduction

-23 MWh

Equivalent of:

2 Homes

This Entity

Group Average †Overall

Global Average

36 %

29 %

7 %

This Entity

Group Average †Managed

Global Average

33 %

29 %

7 %

This Entity

Group Average †Indirect

Global Average

40 %

10 %

2 %


Not scorNot scoreded


Notes on energy data

Energy Consumption Intensities

* Baseline year

Intensity

0

25

50

75

20092009** 20122012 20132013

% of% of

portfolioportfolio

covercovereded

25% 22% 23%

Peers with intensity data


[61%][61%] No

[39%][39%] Yes


Energy intensity calculation method

Renewable Energy

Onsite (generated and consumed)

Offsite (generated or purchased)

Onsite (generated and exported)

MWh

0

2

4

20122012 20132013

%%

RRenewableenewable

EnerEnergygy

0% 0%

Peers with renewable energy data


[83%][83%] No

[17%][17%] Yes



“


“


PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetGHG Emissions



Scope Ⅰ Scope Ⅱ Scope Ⅲ

108 T 50 T N/ADirect greenhouse gas emissions byweight in metric tonnes CO2

Indirect greenhouse gas emissions byweight in metric tonnes CO2

Emissions by tenants inmetric tonnes CO2

Data Coverage

* Data coverage calculated based on lettable Toor area only




Change in Like-for-like GHG Emissions between 2012-2013

0.9 % OVERALL INCREASE

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0.9 %

This

Entity-1.4 %

Group

Average

-1.2 %

Global

Average




Impact of Change

GHG Emissions INCREASEINCREASE

1 tonnes

Equivalent of:

0.21 Automobiles

This Entity *

Group Average †

Global Average

39 %

36 %

8 %



Notes on GHG data

GHG Emission Intensities

No intensities data for GHG Emissions for Retail, HighStreet Peers with intensity data


[63%][63%] No

[37%][37%] Yes



“


PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetWater Use



Data Coverage

* Data coverage calculated based on lettable Toor area only




Change in Like-for-like Water Use between 2012-2013


OVERALL

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-4.3 %

This

Entity

-7.1 %

Group

Average

-4.5 %

Global

Average

MANAGED

-2.5 %

This

Entity

-7.6 %

Group

Average

-4.4 %

Global

Average

INDIRECT

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-13.6 %

This

Entity

-3.1 %

Group

Average

-3 %

Global

Average




Impact of Change

Water Use RReductioneduction

-6000 m³

Equivalent of:

2 Olympic Swimming Pools

This Entity *


Global Average

24 %

17 %

5 %

This Entity *


Global Average

37 %

17 %

5 %

This Entity *


Global Average

3 %

5 %

1 %



Notes on water data

Water Use Intensities

* Baseline year

Intensity

0

50000

100 000

20092009** 20122012 20132013

% of% of

portfolioportfolio

covercovereded

12% 14% 8%



[79%][79%] No

[21%][21%] Yes


Water intensity calculation method


“


“


PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetWaste Management



WASTE MANAGEMENT

Total weight hazardous waste in metric tonnes

Total weight non-hazardous waste in metric tonnes

Tonnes

0

25000

50000

75000

ManagedManaged IndirIndirectect ManagedManaged IndirIndirectect

34.0% 0% 39.0% 0%

%%

PortfolioPortfolio

CoverCovereded 2012 2013

Peers with data


[79%][79%] No

[21%][21%] Yes


Data Coverage




WASTE STREAMS

2012 20130%

25%

50%

75%

100%

RecyclingIncinerationLandSll

Peers with data


[85%][85%] No

[15%][15%] Yes


This Entity


Global Average

39 %

69 %

72 %

This Entity


Global Average

N / A

1 %

18 %


Notes on waste data


“


PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceEnergy Consumption



Data Coverage

† Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region



Change in Like-for-like Energy Consumption between 2012-2013


OVERALL

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-2.7 %

This

Entity

-0.9 %

Group

Average

-1.3 %

Global

Average

MANAGED

-2.9 %

This

Entity

-0.5 %

Group

Average

-1.2 %

Global

Average

INDIRECT

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-2.4 %

This

Entity4.4 %

Group

Average-0.7 %

Global

Average

Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region



Impact of Change

Energy Consumption RReductioneduction

-215 MWh

Equivalent of:

19 Homes

This Entity


Global Average

47 %

76 %

38 %

This Entity


Global Average

52 %

77 %

42 %

This Entity


Global Average

35 %

16 %

7 %




Notes on energy data

Energy Consumption Intensities

No intensities data for Energy Consumption for OfSce



[81%][81%] Yes

[19%][19%] No


Renewable Energy

No renewable energy data for OfSce

Peers with renewable energy data


[67%][67%] Yes

[33%][33%] No



“


PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceGHG Emissions



Scope Ⅰ Scope Ⅱ Scope Ⅲ

N/A N/A N/ADirect greenhouse gas emissions byweight in metric tonnes CO2

Indirect greenhouse gas emissions byweight in metric tonnes CO2

Emissions by tenants inmetric tonnes CO2

Data Coverage




Change in Like-for-like GHG Emissions between 2012-2013

N/A

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

N/A

This

Entity

-0.5 %

Group

Average

-2.5 %

Global

Average




Impact of Change

GHG Emissions

N/A

Equivalent of:

0 Automobiles

This Entity

Group Average †

Global Average

0 %

75 %

38 %


Not scorNot scorededGHG Emission Intensities

No intensities data for GHG Emissions for OfSce



[76%][76%] Yes

[24%][24%] No



PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceWater Use



Data Coverage




Change in Like-for-like Water Use between 2012-2013


OVERALL

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

-2.4 %

This

Entity 2.6 %

Group

Average-0.7 %

Global

Average

MANAGED

-6.3 %

This

Entity 2.1 %

Group

Average-0.7 %

Global

Average

INDIRECT

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

7.5 %

This

Entity

3.4 %

Group

Average-1 %

Global

Average




Impact of Change

Water Use RReductioneduction

-630 m³

Equivalent of:

0.25 Olympic SwimmingPools

This Entity


Global Average

13 %

60 %

33 %

This Entity


Global Average

12 %

61 %

36 %

This Entity


Global Average

14 %

9 %

6 %



Notes on water data

Water Use Intensities

No intensities data for Water Use for OfSce



[71%][71%] Yes

[29%][29%] No



“


PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceWaste Management



WASTE MANAGEMENT

No waste management data for OfSce

Peers with data


[76%][76%] Yes

[24%][24%] No


Data Coverage




No waste streams data for OfSce

Peers with data


[67%][67%] Yes

[33%][33%] No


This Entity


Global Average

N / A

45 %

70 %

This Entity


Global Average

N / A

2 %

20 %


Certi+cations &Energy RatingsRetail, High Street

Percentage of Peers

Green building certiScates:time of construction

Coverage by CertiScation

Full Points Partial Points No Points

BREEAM NewConstruction

HQE NewConstructions

LEED Building Designand Construction

12 %

4 %

2 %

Average Coverage by CertiScation Brand

BREEAM

DGNB

LEED

HQE

3.1 %

0.3 %

0.1 %

0 %

Comparison: Retail, High Street / Sample Region

Green building certiScates:operational performance



HQE Existing Building

BREEAM In Use

BREEAMRefurbishment

12 %

8 %

5 %


BREEAM

In-house scheme

LEED

HQE

BBC - EfSnergie

1.2 %

0.6 %

0.2 %

0.2 %

0.1 %

Comparison: Retail, High Street / Sample Region

Energy ratings

Specify the rating scheme used and the percentage of the portfolio rated (multiple answerspossible).

Country % Coverage (within country) Floor area weighted score

30 (continued)

Netherlands 54 C

Belgium 67 B

Q29

CertiGcation

POINTS: 6/10

Q30 POINTS: 3/5

Yes 46%

EU EPC (Energy Performance CertiIcate) for % of the portfoliobased on Joor area

for: 59%

46%

NABERS Energy 0%


Energy Star 0%

Other 0%

No 4%

Not applicable 0%

OfSce

Percentage of Peers

Green building certiScates:time of construction



BREEAM NewConstruction

DGNB New

12 %

1 %


GPR Gebouw

BREEAM

DGNB

1.4 %

1.4 %

0 %

Comparison: OfSce / Sample Region

Green building certiScates:operational performance



BEAM Plus - ExistingBuildings

LEED BuildingOperations and

Maintenance

13 %

2 %


GPR Gebouw

In-house scheme

BREEAM

BEAM Plus

LEED

4.8 %

4.6 %

4.2 %

0.6 %

0.1 %

Comparison: OfSce / Sample Region

Energy ratings

Specify the rating scheme used and the percentage of the portfolio rated (multiple answerspossible).

Q29

CertiGcation

POINTS: 10/10

Q30 POINTS: 3/5

Yes 46%

EU EPC (Energy Performance CertiIcate) for % of the portfoliobased on Joor area

for: 68%

46%


Country % Coverage (within country) Floor area weighted score

30 (continued)

Netherlands 56 A

Belgium 80 C

NABERS Energy 0%

Energy Star 0%

Other 0%

No 4%

Not applicable 0%

StakeholderEngagementEmployees

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Remuneration policy

Applicable options

Independent remuneration committee


[79%][79%] Yes

[19%][19%] No


Annual performance and career development reviews

Q31.1 POINTS: 1/1.5

Yes

Evidence provided

95%

Policy includes performance-related long-term incentives 65%

Policy includes performance-related incentives, but not long-term

48%

Other 13%

No 4%

Q31.2 POINTS: 0/0.5

Q32 POINTS: 0.5/1

Yes 100%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of employees covered


[95%][95%] ≥75, ≤100%

[2%][2%] ≥25%, <50%

[2%][2%] 0%, <25%

Do the employees responsible for the entity receive regular training?


[93%][93%] Yes

[7%][7%] No

Employee satisfaction survey

Surveys undertaken

Employee satisfaction improvement program

No 0%

Q33 POINTS: 0/2

Q34.1 POINTS: 0.7/1.5

Yes

Survey response rate: 89%

Evidence provided

72%

Internally

Percentage of employees covered: 67%

4%

By an independent third party 67%

No 27%

Q34.2 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 69%

No 11%


Not applicable 18%

Health and Safety

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Health and safety checks

Does the organization report on employee occupational health and safety indicators?

Q35.1 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 90%

No 4%

Not applicable 4%

Q35.2 POINTS: 0/0.5

Yes 76%

No 23%

Tenants/Occupiers

Percentage of Peers

Tenant engagement program

Issues included

% portfolio covered



[19%][19%] 0%, <25%

[14%][14%] ≥75, ≤100%

[14%][14%] ≥25%, <50%

[9%][9%] ≥50%, <75%

Q36 POINTS: 1.8/4

Yes 83%

Tenant sustainability guide 55%

Tenant engagement meetings 65%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

% portfolio covered



[30%][30%] 0%, <25%

[14%][14%] ≥25%, <50%

[12%][12%] ≥75, ≤100%

[9%][9%] ≥50%, <75%

Tenant satisfaction survey

Tenant satisfaction improvement program

Applicable options

Tenant sustainability training 9%

Events focused on increasing sustainability awareness 20%

Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumptionand waste

62%

Building/asset communication 32%

Other 34%

No 16%

Q37.1 POINTS: 0/3

Yes 67%

No 27%

Not applicable 4%

Q37.2 POINTS: 1/1

Yes 72%

Feedback sessions with asset/property managers 69%

Feedback sessions with individual tenants 67%

Development of an asset speciIc action plan 37%

Other 9%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Tenant satisfaction improvement program

Tenant Gt-out and refurbishment program

Sustainability-speciGc requirements in standard lease contracts

Topics included


“

No 4%

Not applicable 23%

Q38 POINTS: 0/3

Yes 30%

No 67%

Not applicable 2%

Q39 POINTS: 0/3

Yes

Evidence provided

62%

Sharing of utility data 51%

Shared consumption targets/goals in place 13%

Cost recovery clause for energy eKciency-related capitalimprovements

25%

Energy-eKcient and/or environmentally responsiblespeciIcations for tenant works

46%

Legal obligations for landlord/tenant information formandatory energy rating schemes

13%

Information sharing relevant to green building certiIcates 39%

Prioritization of sustainability requirements over costminimization

41%

Other 9%

No 30%

Not applicable 6%


Supply chain

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Sustainability-speciGc requirements procurement process

Requirements apply to

Monitoring external property/asset managers' compliance with sustainability-speciGcrequirements

Monitoring direct external suppliers' compliance with sustainability-speciGc requirements

Topics included

Q40 POINTS: 2/3

Yes

Evidence provided

81%

External property/asset managers 65%

External contractors 79%

External service providers 62%

External suppliers 32%

Other 0%

No 16%

Not applicable 2%

Q41.1 POINTS: 0/2

Yes 81%

No 6%

Not applicable 11%

Q41.2 POINTS: 2/2

Yes 79%

Receive update reports from suppliers 27%

Regular meetings with suppliers 69%

Checks performed by external consultants

Name of the organization: Your SustainabilityProvider

[ACCEPTED]

51%

Check external suppliers' and/or service providers' alignmentwith applicable professional standards

44%

Other 4%


No 13%

Not applicable 6%

Community

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Community engagement program

Monitoring of community impact

Areas of impact that are monitored

Community engagement program and monitoring process

[NO POINTS]

Q42.1 POINTS: 0/2.5

Yes 65%

No 34%

Q42.2 POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Yes 13%

Impact on crime levels 6%

Local business revenues 11%

Local residents’ well-being 6%

Local community welfare 13%

Other 0%

No 74%

Not applicable 11%

Q42.3 POINTS: 0/1


“

New construction &Major renovationsSustainabilityRequirements Percentage of Peers

Sustainability strategy

NC1 POINTS: 0/1


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Strategy:

[NO POINTS]

Sustainable site selection assessment

Sustainable site development requirements

Yes 25%


“

No 0%

NC2 POINTS: 0/3

Yes 20%

No 4%

Not applicable 0%

NC3 POINTS: 0/1.5

Yes 23%

No 2%

CommunityEnagagement

Percentage of Peers

Local community communication policy for projects



[14%][14%] No

[12%][12%] Yes

Monitoring of project impact on local community

NC4.1 POINTS: 0.5/0.5

NC4.2 POINTS: 0/1

Yes 9%


Process:

[NO POINTS]


“

No 16%

Materials andCertiScations

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Construction materials policy

Green building certiGcates

NC5 POINTS: 0/2.5

Yes 23%

No 2%

Not applicable 0%

NC6 POINTS: 0/6

Yes 18%

No 6%

Not applicable 0%

Energy EfSciency

Percentage of Peers

Energy efGciency requirements

Applicable requirements

NC7 POINTS: 1.5/3

Yes 13%

Energy performance that exceeds applicable mandatoryrequirements by at least 10% for new construction projectsand 5% for major renovations

11%

Fundamental refrigerant management 9%

Development and implementation of a commissioning plan 11%

VeriIcation of the installation and performance of thebuilding energy systems

9%


Percentage of Peers

On-site renewable energy sources

Projects designed to meet net-zero energy standards



[16%][16%] No

[7%][7%] Yes


Other 0%

No 11%

Not applicable 0%

NC8.1 POINTS: 0/3

Yes 11%

No 13%

NC8.2 POINTS: 1/1

Percentage of projects covered: 34%

BuildingRequirements

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Measures focused on occupant wellbeing

Minimum water efGciency requirements

NC9 POINTS: 0/0.5

Yes 11%

No 13%

Not applicable 0%

NC10 POINTS: 0/2

Yes 20%

No 4%

Not applicable 0%

NC11 POINTS: 1/2


Percentage of Peers

Waste policy

Topics included

Yes

Evidence provided

11%

Waste management plans 11%

Waste reduction, re-use or recycling targets 4%

Contractors' recovering and recycling building materialsincentives

4%

Education waste management techniques 2%

Other 0%

No 13%

Supply ChainRequirements

Percentage of Peers

Sustainability-speciGc requirements for contractors



[23%][23%] Yes

[2%][2%] No

Monitoring contractors' compliance with sustainability-speciGc requirements

Applicable options

NC12.1 POINTS: 0/1

NC12.2 POINTS: 1.8/3

Yes 25%

Compliance with international standard 11%

On site sustainability resource/staH 4%

Contractor update reports environmental and social aspects 6%

Internal audits 2%

External audits by third party 16%

Ad hoc site visits 4%

Contractor enforcement of sustainability requirements in sub-contracts

6%

Other 0%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Occupational health and safety management systems

Occupational health and safety indicators

Applicable options

No 0%

Not applicable 0%

NC13.1 POINTS: 0/2.5

Yes 9%

No 16%

NC13.2 POINTS: 0.5/1

Yes 4%

Injury rate 2%

Fatalities 0%

Near misses

3

2%

No 20%

Community Impact

Percentage of Peers

Assessment of socio-economic impact

IdentiSed areas of impact

NC14 POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Yes

Evidence provided

2%

Local business revenues 2%

Local residents’ well-being 0%

Local community welfare 2%

Other 0%

No 23%


Sample Benchmark Report - Sway...

Documents

Transcript of Sample Benchmark Report - Sway...