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


Implementation &Measurement


Management &Policy


Development

ESG Breakdown


Environment


Social


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


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


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

“


http://www.example.com

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%


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


[46%][46%] Senior Management Team

[21%][21%] Board of Directors

[17%][17%] Investment Committee


[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%


“

No 4%


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%


37%

No 25%

Policy & DisclosurePOINTS: 12/14WEIGHT: 10.1%

SustainabilityDisclosure

Percentage of Peers

Disclosure of sustainability performance

Applicable reporting level

Aligned with



[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%



Aligned with



[21%][21%] GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2013

[8%][8%] PRI Reporting Framework, 2013

[4%][4%] Other





[25%][25%] Investment manager

[25%][25%] Entity

[13%][13%] Group

Aligned with



[13%][13%] Other



Entity 33%


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%


Group 0%


http://www.example.com

Percentage of Peers

Aligned with




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


[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%


37%

No 4%

Q9 POINTS: 1/1

[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided

Q10 POINTS: 2/2


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Stakeholder engagement policy

Stakeholders included

Employee policy

Issues included


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


83%

Diversity 79%

Remuneration 83%

Performance and career development 75%

Health & safety 83%

Cyber security 70%


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

“


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


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


87%

Energy efficiency 87%

Water efficiency 79%

GHG emissions 20%

Building safety and materials 87%

Transportation 25%

Contamination 75%

Natural hazards 70%


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%


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%


8%


“

No 8%

Not applicable 8%

Energy Efficiency

Percentage of Peers

Technical building assessments

Q16 POINTS: 3/3


83%


Percentage of Peers

Assessment type


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


[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%


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


[54%][54%] Yes

[46%][46%] No

Independent review of the EMS

Q20.1 POINTS: 1.5/1.5 Improvement


Q20.2 POINTS: 1/1.5 Improvement


41%

Aligned withExample alignment [ACCEPTED]

37%

Externally verified by 0%

Externally certified by 4%

No 12%

Not applicable 45%


Data ManagementSystems

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Data Management System

Type


[75%][75%] External system


[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


66%

Aligned withExample alignment [ACCEPTED]

58%

Externally verified by 8%

Externally certified by 0%

No 20%

Not applicable 12%


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%


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



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%


Global Average 87%

Indirect

This Entity 0%


Global Average 68%

Energy Consumption INCREASEINCREASE

640 MWh

Equivalent of:

57 Homes


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


“

20132013 20142014

% of% ofportfolioportfoliocovercovereded

75% 80%

Peers with intensity data


[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%


“

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


[76%][76%] No

[24%][24%] Yes


Intensity

0

25

50

75

MWh

0

50

100



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


Impact of Change


* 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%


Global Average 85%

GHG Emissions RReductioneduction

-491 tonnes

Equivalent of:

102 Automobiles


Percentage of Peers

Notes on GHG data

POINTS: 0.5/1GHG Emission Intensities


GHG intensity calculation method


“

20132013 20142014


70% 75%



[73%][73%] Yes

[27%][27%] No


Occupancy rate 33%

Footfall 0%



Degree days 4%


Building age 0%


20%



“

Intensity

0

5

10



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


Impact of Change


† 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%


Global Average 79%

Managed

This Entity 95%


Global Average 85%

Indirect

This Entity 0%


Global Average 66%

Water Use RReductioneduction

-23859 m³

Equivalent of:

10 Olympic Swimming Pools


Percentage of Peers

Notes on water data

POINTS: 0.5/1Water Use Intensities


Water intensity calculation method


“

20132013 20142014


80% 85%



[75%][75%] Yes

[25%][25%] No


Occupancy rate 33%

Footfall 0%



Degree days 4%


Building age 0%


20%



“

Intensity

0

10

20



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


[64%][64%] Yes

[36%][36%] No



† 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%


Global Average 72%

Indirect

This Entity 0%


Global Average 46%

Waste StreamsPeers with data


[65%][65%] Yes

[35%][35%] No


Tonnes

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

2013 20140%

25%

50%

75%

100%

RecyclingIncinerationLandfill


Notes on waste data


“

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


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



Floor area weighted score: 81.0 79.01

87%

Government energy efficiency benchmarking



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


[67%][67%] Yes

[21%][21%] No

[13%][13%] Not applicable

Q31.1 POINTS: 1.5/1.5


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


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Employee career development review

Percentage of employees covered


[88%][88%] ≥75, ≤100%


Employee training


[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%


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



[25%][25%] ≥75, ≤100%

[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%

[8%][8%] 0%, <25%



[46%][46%] ≥75, ≤100%


[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%





[25%][25%] ≥75, ≤100%

[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%



[54%][54%] ≥75, ≤100%


[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%

[8%][8%] ≥50%, <75%

[4%][4%] 0%, <25%




[42%][42%] ≥75, ≤100%

[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%

[4%][4%] ≥50%, <75%

[4%][4%] 0%, <25%




[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%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers




[21%][21%] ≥75, ≤100%

Tenant satisfaction survey

Surveys undertaken

Tenant satisfaction survey results

Scope of program

Tenant satisfaction improvement program

Other 8%

No 16%



70%

InternallyPercentage of tenants covered: 100%

Survey response rate: 70%

8%

By an independent third party 62%

No 25%

Not applicable 4%


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%


“

No 8%

Not applicable 20%


Percentage of Peers

Fit-out and refurbishment program

Topics included



[54%][54%] ≥75, ≤100%


[13%][13%] ≥25%, <50%

[8%][8%] 0%, <25%



[50%][50%] ≥75, ≤100%


[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50%

[4%][4%] 0%, <25%




[33%][33%] ≥75, ≤100%

[13%][13%] 0%, <25%




[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%


Percentage of Peers

Sustainability lease clauses

Topics included

No 16%

Not applicable 4%

Q39 POINTS: 3/3


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%


8%

No 16%

Not applicable 4%

Supply chain

Percentage of Peers

Sustainability-specific requirements in procurement

Requirements apply to

Q40 POINTS: 3/3


75%

External property/asset managers 50%

External contractors 66%

External service providers 62%

External suppliers 70%


4%

No 25%


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%


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%


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%


25%

No 54%

Not applicable 4%

Q42.3 POINTS: 0.5/1

Yes 62%


“

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

“


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


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%


CommunityEnagagement

Percentage of Peers

Policy for community engagement



[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



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%


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



[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


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%


Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Water efficiency 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%


4%

No 4%

Not applicable 4%

NC11 POINTS: 1.5/2 Improvement


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%


Supply ChainRequirements

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Percentage of Peers

Sustainability-specific requirements for contractors



[21%][21%] No

[17%][17%] Yes

Monitoring contractors' compliance


Occupational health and safety management system

Occupational health and safety indicators

NC12.1 POINTS: 1/1 Improvement

Percentage of portfolio covered: 100%


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


Percentage of Peers

Socio-economic impact on community

Yes 4%

No 33%


Documents

GRESB Benchmark Report - 2015