Upload
phunghanh
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
weight: 69.8% 42-PEER
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 5 of 56
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 7 of 56
Aspects
AspectWWeight in GRESB Scoreight in GRESB Scoree Score P e e r Group Compa r ison
Management
weight: 8.7% 50-PEER
75AVERAGE
GLOBAL
69AVERAGE
Policy & Disclosure
weight: 10.2% 61-PEER
70AVERAGE
GLOBAL
57AVERAGE
Risks & Opportunities
weight: 11.6% 39-PEER
70AVERAGE
GLOBAL
60AVERAGE
Monitoring & EMS
weight: 9.5% 56-PEER
53AVERAGE
GLOBAL
53AVERAGE
Performance Indicators
weight: 23.6% 34-PEER
29AVERAGE
GLOBAL
31AVERAGE
Building Certi+cation &Benchmarking
weight: 10.9%73-
PEER
35AVERAGE
GLOBAL
30AVERAGE
Stakeholder Engagement
weight: 25.5% 30-PEER
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 9 of 56
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.
“
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 11 of 56
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%
Page 12 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 13 of 56
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[84%][84%] (no answer provided)
[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%
Page 14 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Selection:
using
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[98%][98%] (no answer provided)
[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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 15 of 56
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Policies addressing risks of exposure to bribery and corruption
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[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%
Page 16 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 17 of 56
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%
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 6%
Not applicable 2%
Energy EfSciency Q16 POINTS: 0/3
Page 18 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 19 of 56
Monitoring & EMSEnvironmentalManagementSystems
Percentage of Peers
Environmental Management System (EMS)
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[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)
_
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[53%][53%] Developed internally
[23%][23%] External system
[16%][16%] Tailor-made internal system developed by a third party
[7%][7%] (no answer provided)
Aspects included
Q21.1 POINTS: 2.8/4
Yes
Percentage of portfolio covered: 26%
93%
Energy consumption/management 93%
Page 20 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[47%][47%] Annualy
[21%][21%] 15 min
[9%][9%] 60 min
[9%][9%] Monthly
[5%][5%] Quarterly
[5%][5%] (no answer provided)
[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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 21 of 56
Percentage of Peers
Monitoring of water consumption
Frequency
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] Annualy
[16%][16%] (no answer provided)
[9%][9%] Quarterly
[5%][5%] Monthly
[5%][5%] Semi-annual
[2%][2%] 15 min
Type
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by Joorarea: 60%
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
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by Joorarea: 50%
58%
Manual–visual readings 53%
Provided by the tenant 16%
Other 4%
No 16%
Not applicable 0%
Page 22 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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
Retail, High StreetOfSce
0 T
50 T
100 T
150 T
200 T
WATER CONSUMPTIONPOINTS: 0.9/3
2012 2013
Retail, High StreetOfSce
0 m3
250000 m3
500000 m3
750000 m3
1000 000 m3
1250 000 m3
WASTE MANAGEMENTPOINTS: 0.4/4
2012 2013
Retail, High StreetOfSce
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 23 of 56
Area Target typeLong-term
target
Baseline
yearEnd year
2013
target
Peer avg
target
Are these targets
communicated
externally?
Other 0.21%
Page 24 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetEnergy Consumption
POINTS: 2.8/8POINTS: 2.8/8
POINTS: 2.4/6POINTS: 2.4/6
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
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.
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 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 25 of 56
Not scorNot scoreded
POINTS: 1/1POINTS: 1/1
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[61%][61%] No
[39%][39%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[83%][83%] No
[17%][17%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
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.
“
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.
“
Page 26 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetGHG Emissions
POINTS: 0.5/2POINTS: 0.5/2
POINTS: 0/1POINTS: 0/1
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
† 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 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
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.
Impact of Change
GHG Emissions INCREASEINCREASE
1 tonnes
Equivalent of:
0.21 Automobiles
This Entity *
Group Average †
Global Average
39 %
36 %
8 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 27 of 56
Not scorNot scoreded
Notes on GHG data
GHG Emission Intensities
No intensities data for GHG Emissions for Retail, HighStreet Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] No
[37%][37%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
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.
“
Page 28 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetWater Use
POINTS: 0.5/2POINTS: 0.5/2
POINTS: 0.4/1POINTS: 0.4/1
Data Coverage
* Data coverage calculated based on lettable Toor area only
† 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 Water Use between 2012-2013
4.3 % OVERALL DECREASE
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
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.
Impact of Change
Water Use RReductioneduction
-6000 m³
Equivalent of:
2 Olympic Swimming Pools
This Entity *
Group Average †Overall
Global Average
24 %
17 %
5 %
This Entity *
Group Average †Managed
Global Average
37 %
17 %
5 %
This Entity *
Group Average †Indirect
Global Average
3 %
5 %
1 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 29 of 56
Not scorNot scoreded
Notes on water data
Water Use Intensities
* Baseline year
Intensity
0
50000
100 000
20092009** 20122012 20132013
% of% of
portfolioportfolio
covercovereded
12% 14% 8%
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] No
[21%][21%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
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 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.
“
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.
“
Page 30 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsRetail, High StreetWaste Management
POINTS: 0.6/3POINTS: 0.6/3
POINTS: 0.3/1POINTS: 0.3/1
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] No
[21%][21%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
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.
WASTE STREAMS
2012 20130%
25%
50%
75%
100%
RecyclingIncinerationLandSll
Peers with data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[85%][85%] No
[15%][15%] Yes
Comparison Group: Retail, High Street / Sample Region
This Entity
Group Average †Managed
Global Average
39 %
69 %
72 %
This Entity
Group Average †Indirect
Global Average
N / A
1 %
18 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 31 of 56
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 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.
“
Page 32 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceEnergy Consumption
POINTS: 2/8POINTS: 2/8
POINTS: 4/6POINTS: 4/6
Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Change in Like-for-like Energy Consumption between 2012-2013
2.7 % OVERALL DECREASE
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
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Impact of Change
Energy Consumption RReductioneduction
-215 MWh
Equivalent of:
19 Homes
This Entity
Group Average †Overall
Global Average
47 %
76 %
38 %
This Entity
Group Average †Managed
Global Average
52 %
77 %
42 %
This Entity
Group Average †Indirect
Global Average
35 %
16 %
7 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 33 of 56
Not scorNot scoreded
POINTS: 0/1POINTS: 0/1
Notes on energy data
Energy Consumption Intensities
No intensities data for Energy Consumption for OfSce
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[81%][81%] Yes
[19%][19%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Renewable Energy
No renewable energy data for OfSce
Peers with renewable energy data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[67%][67%] Yes
[33%][33%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
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.
“
Page 34 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceGHG Emissions
POINTS: 0/2POINTS: 0/2
POINTS: 0/1POINTS: 0/1
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
† Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
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
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Impact of Change
GHG Emissions
N/A
Equivalent of:
0 Automobiles
This Entity
Group Average †
Global Average
0 %
75 %
38 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 35 of 56
Not scorNot scorededGHG Emission Intensities
No intensities data for GHG Emissions for OfSce
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[76%][76%] Yes
[24%][24%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Page 36 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceWater Use
POINTS: 0.5/2POINTS: 0.5/2
POINTS: 0.3/1POINTS: 0.3/1
Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Change in Like-for-like Water Use between 2012-2013
2.4 % OVERALL DECREASE
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
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Impact of Change
Water Use RReductioneduction
-630 m³
Equivalent of:
0.25 Olympic SwimmingPools
This Entity
Group Average †Overall
Global Average
13 %
60 %
33 %
This Entity
Group Average †Managed
Global Average
12 %
61 %
36 %
This Entity
Group Average †Indirect
Global Average
14 %
9 %
6 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 37 of 56
Not scorNot scoreded
Notes on water data
Water Use Intensities
No intensities data for Water Use for OfSce
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[71%][71%] Yes
[29%][29%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
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.
“
Page 38 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsOfSceWaste Management
POINTS: 0/3POINTS: 0/3
POINTS: 0/1POINTS: 0/1
WASTE MANAGEMENT
No waste management data for OfSce
Peers with data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[76%][76%] Yes
[24%][24%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
Directly managed assets make up 70.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
Indirectly managed assets make up 30.0% of total assets for Sample Benchmark Report.
No waste streams data for OfSce
Peers with data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[67%][67%] Yes
[33%][33%] No
Comparison Group: OfSce / Sample Region
This Entity
Group Average †Managed
Global Average
N / A
45 %
70 %
This Entity
Group Average †Indirect
Global Average
N / A
2 %
20 %
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 39 of 56
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
Coverage by CertiScation
Full Points Partial Points No Points
HQE Existing Building
BREEAM In Use
BREEAMRefurbishment
12 %
8 %
5 %
Average Coverage by CertiScation Brand
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%
Page 40 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Energy Star 0%
Other 0%
No 4%
Not applicable 0%
OfSce
Percentage of Peers
Green building certiScates:time of construction
Coverage by CertiScation
Full Points Partial Points No Points
BREEAM NewConstruction
DGNB New
12 %
1 %
Average Coverage by CertiScation Brand
GPR Gebouw
BREEAM
DGNB
1.4 %
1.4 %
0 %
Comparison: OfSce / Sample Region
Green building certiScates:operational performance
Coverage by CertiScation
Full Points Partial Points No Points
BEAM Plus - ExistingBuildings
LEED BuildingOperations and
Maintenance
13 %
2 %
Average Coverage by CertiScation Brand
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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 41 of 56
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] Yes
[19%][19%] No
[2%][2%] Not applicable
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%
Page 42 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of employees covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[95%][95%] ≥75, ≤100%
[2%][2%] ≥25%, <50%
[2%][2%] 0%, <25%
Do the employees responsible for the entity receive regular training?
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 43 of 56
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[44%][44%] (no answer provided)
[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%
Page 44 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
% portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[35%][35%] (no answer provided)
[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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 45 of 56
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
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 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%
Page 46 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 47 of 56
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
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.
“
New construction &Major renovationsSustainabilityRequirements Percentage of Peers
Sustainability strategy
NC1 POINTS: 0/1
Page 48 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Strategy:
[NO POINTS]
Sustainable site selection assessment
Sustainable site development requirements
Yes 25%
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%
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[74%][74%] (no answer provided)
[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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 49 of 56
Process:
[NO POINTS]
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 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%
Page 50 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
Percentage of Peers
On-site renewable energy sources
Projects designed to meet net-zero energy standards
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[74%][74%] (no answer provided)
[16%][16%] No
[7%][7%] Yes
[2%][2%] Not applicable
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
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 51 of 56
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
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[74%][74%] (no answer provided)
[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%
Page 52 of 56 GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC
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%
GRESB benchmark report 2014 for Sample Benchmark Report — September 15 2014 21:08 UTC Page 53 of 56