Infrastructure Asset Sample Benchmark Report 1 · 2017-07-13 · Example Asset Manager...
Transcript of Infrastructure Asset Sample Benchmark Report 1 · 2017-07-13 · Example Asset Manager...
Sample Asset Benchmark ReportGRESB Infrastructure
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016DADATE: 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm FTE: 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTCri UTC
© 2016 GRESB BV
Table of ContentsScorecard/Key Highlights
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Entity & Peer Group Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Additional context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ManagementStrategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Leadership & Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Policy & DisclosurePolicies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Engagement & Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Risks & OpportunitiesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ImplementationSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Monitoring & EMSSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Stakeholder EngagementSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Performance IndicatorsOutput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Health & Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Energy & Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Water & Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Biodiversity & Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Certifications & AwardsCertifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Awards & Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Page 2 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
GRESB Model
Implementation & Measurement
Man
agem
ent &
Pol
icy
0 50 100
0
50
100
This Entity Peer Group Average Peer Group GRESB Average
GRESB Universe Europe North America Oceania Globally Diversified
Peer Average 41GRESB Average 28
GRESB Score
Peer Average 33GRESB Average 24
Implementation & Measurement
Peer Average 43GRESB Average 34
Management & Policy
70100
56100
89100
Rankings
1stout of 22
Europe 2ndout of 12
Investment type: Transportation 1stout of 12
Transportation / Europe
7thout of 134
All Infrastructure Assets
Sample AssetExample Asset ManagerParticipation & GRESB Score
Peer Average 41GRESB Average 28
GRESB Score70100
Peer Comparison
1stout of 12
Transportation / Europe
2016In
fras
truc
ture
Asse
ssm
ent
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 3 of 29
Aspects
AspectWWeight in GRESB Scoreight in GRESB Scoree This Entity Peer Group GRESB
Management 11% 76PEER
40AVERAGE
GRESB
42AVERAGE
Policy & Disclosure 14% 93PEER
48AVERAGE
GRESB
39AVERAGE
Risks & Opportunities 10% 71PEER
33AVERAGE
GRESB
31AVERAGE
Implementation 7.5% 90PEER
50AVERAGE
GRESB
43AVERAGE
Monitoring & EMS 10% 95PEER
52AVERAGE
GRESB
39AVERAGE
Stakeholder Engagement 10% 78PEER
37AVERAGE
GRESB
21AVERAGE
Performance Indicators 30% 51PEER
18AVERAGE
GRESB
18AVERAGE
Certifications & Awards 7.5% 0PEER
2AVERAGE
GRESB
9AVERAGE
Management
Policy & Disclosure
Risks & Opportunities
Implementation
Monitoring & EMSStakeholder Engagement
Performance Indicators
Certifications & Awards
25
50
758484
9191
7777
93938282
78
565600
This Entity Peer Group 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
Page 4 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Entity & PeerGroupCharacteristics
This Entity
Benchmark Geography: Europe
Benchmark Sector: Transportation
Peer Group (6 entities)
Benchmark Geography: Europe
Benchmark Sector: Transportation
Countries
[100%][100%] Europe
Sectors
[100%][100%] Transportation: Railroad
Peer Group Countries
[100%][100%] Europe
Peer Group Sectors
[50%][50%] Transportation: Toll RoadOperations
[17%][17%] Transportation: Railroad
[17%][17%] Transportation: Ports
[17%][17%] Transportation: Airport
Additional contextText provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 5 of 29
ManagementPOINTS:9/11WEIGHT:11%
Strategic Plan
ESG issues in long-term strategic plan(s) Percentage of Peers
Elements addressed in the entity’s long-term strategic plan(s)
Evidence provided
MA1 POINTS: 2.8/2.8
Percentage of Peers
� [80%][80%] No
� [20%][20%] Yes
Yes� 100%
Environmental performance� 100%
Social performance� 80%
Governance performance� 80%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
Additional context
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomized data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Leadership &Accountability Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues Percentage of Peers
This senior decision maker is part of the
Evidence provided
MA2 POINTS: 2/2.8
Percentage of Peers
� [80%][80%] No
� [20%][20%] Yes
Additional context
Yes
Name: Harold
Job title: Sustainability
LinkedIn profile (optional):
� 100%
Board of Directors� 20%
Senior Management Team� 80%
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Page 6 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 7 of 29
Senior leadership has targets for:
Does performance on these targets have pre-determined consequences?
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
[100%][100%] No
[0%][0%] Yes
Additional context
Environmental performance 80%
Social performance 80%
Governance performance 80%
Other 0%
Yes 80%
Positive consequences for meeting or exceeding ESG targets 20%
Negative consequences for not achieving ESG targets 60%
Negative recognition 0%
Loss of financial compensation 60%
Additional support, resources, or training 0%
Other consequences 0%
No 20%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No 20%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
ESG performance targets for senior leadership Percentage of Peers
MA3 POINTS: 2/2.8
Yes 80%
Categorize ESG-related training provided to different categories of workers
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
Employees� 100%
Environmental issues� 100%
Social issues� 40%
Governance issues� 40%
Other
example
� 0%
Contractors� 40%
Environmental issues� 60%
Social issues� 0%
Governance issues� 0%
Other� 0%
Other� 20%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Page 8 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
TrainingESG-related training Percentage of Peers
MA4 POINTS: 2.6/2.8
Yes� 100%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 9 of 29
Policy or policies apply to
Evidence provided
Contractors Covered by Entity ESG Policies
� [83%][83%] ≥75, ≤100%
� [17%][17%] ≥25%, <50%
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
Biodiversity and habitat protection� 80%
Energy� 80%
Greenhouse gas emissions� 60%
Invasive species� 80%
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster� 80%
Resilience (adaptation) to climate change� 60%
Water� 80%
Waste� 80%
Other issues
Material and Construction Life Cycle Impacts, Vehicle Miles Traveled [ACCEPTED]
� 20%
Entity� 100%
Contractors� 100%
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Policy & DisclosurePOINTS:13/14WEIGHT:14%
Policies
Policy or policies on environmental issues Percentage of Peers
Specific issues included in the entity’s policy or policies
PD1 POINTS: 1.8/1.8
Yes� 100%
Air pollutants� 80%
Policy or policies on social issues Percentage of Peers
Specific issues included in the entity’s policy or policies
Policy or policies apply to
Evidence provided
PD2 POINTS: 1.8/1.8
Contractors Covered by Entity ESG Policies
[67%][67%] (no answer provided)
[17%][17%] ≥50%, <75%
[17%][17%] ≥75, ≤100%
Percentage of Peers
[100%][100%] No
[0%][0%] Yes
Yes 100%
Child labor 80%
Community relations 100%
Customer satisfaction 80%
Data protection and privacy 100%
Employee engagement 60%
Forced or compulsory labor 80%
Gender and diversity 100%
Health and safety: employees 100%
Health and safety: customers 100%
Health and safety: community 80%
Health and safety: supply chain 20%
Labor standards and working conditions 100%
Discrimination 100%
Other issues
Environmental Justice [ACCEPTED]
0%
Entity 100%
Contractors 20%
Other 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
Page 10 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Additional context
No 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Policy or policies on governance issues Percentage of Peers
Specific issues included in the entities governance policy or policies:
Policy or policies apply to
PD3 POINTS: 1.6/1.8
Contractors Covered by Entity ESG Policies
[83%][83%] (no answer provided)
[17%][17%] ≥75, ≤100%
Yes 100%
Audit committee structure/independence 20%
Board composition 80%
Bribery and corruption 80%
Compensation committee structure/independence 20%
Executive compensation 20%
Fraud 80%
Fiduciary duty 80%
Independence of Board chair 60%
Lobbying activities 80%
One share/one vote 0%
Political contributions 0%
Whistleblower protection 0%
Other
Conflict of Interest, Anti-Discrimination [ACCEPTED]
20%
Entity 100%
Contractors 0%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 11 of 29
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [100%][100%] No
� [0%][0%] Yes
Additional context
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Engagement &Reporting Stakeholder grievances process Percentage of Peers
Describe the elements of the process (select all that apply)
Describe the use of the process during the reporting period (select all that apply)
Evidence provided
PD4 POINTS: 1.6/1.8
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Yes� 100%
Anonymous communications� 100%
24/7 a vailability (e.g., phone, email, post)� 100%
Clear prohibition against retaliation� 20%
Fair and independent review� 20%
Number of grievances communicated� 100%
Summary of types of grievances� 80%
Summary of types of resolutions for grievances� 80%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
Page 12 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Additional context
No 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Third-party review of ESG reporting and/or data Percentage of Peers
Select the most stringent level of review in each area
PD5 POINTS: 1.2/1.8
Yes 100%
ESG reporting 80%
Internal audit 60%
Externally checked by
• Service Provider Name [ACCEPTED]
0%
Externally verified by 0%
Externally assured by 20%
Environmental data 100%
Internal audit 80%
Externally checked by
• 4 See Ltd [ACCEPTED]
0%
Externally verified by 0%
Externally assured by 20%
Social data 60%
Governance data 80%
Information submitted in this assessment (GRESB Infrastructure) 0%
Internal audit 0%
Externally checked by
• Carbon Trust• Asahi Facilities Inc.
[ACCEPTED]
0%
Externally verified by 0%
Externally assured by 0%
Other ESG information 60%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 13 of 29
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Impact assessment during the last 3 years Percentage of Peers
Types of assessments
Evidence provided
PD6 POINTS: 1.8/1.8
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] No
� [40%][40%] (no answer provided)
� [0%][0%] Yes
Additional context
Yes� 60%
Environmental impact statement/report/assessment� 60%
Health Impact Assessment� 0%
Social Impact Assessment� 0%
Community needs assessment� 0%
Other technical assessment
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Cultural and Paleontological Resources;Aesthetic and Visual Quality
[ACCEPTED]
� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 40%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Page 14 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
CommunicationsCommunication of ESG activities Percentage of Peers
Communication strategy:
Evidence provided
PD7 POINTS: 1.5/1.8
Yes� 80%
No communications� 0%
ESG Policy/Policies� 0%
ESG Targets� 20%
ESG Actions� 0%
ESG Performance� 0%
Website� 20%
ESG Policy/Policies� 0%
ESG Targets� 0%
ESG Actions� 20%
ESG Performance� 20%
Section of annual report� 20%
Integrated report� 0%
Sustainability report� 20%
ESG Policy/Policies� 0%
ESG Targets� 0%
ESG Actions� 20%
ESG Performance� 20%
Other
2016 Business Plan [ACCEPTED]
� 80%
ESG Policy/Policies� 80%
ESG Targets� 60%
ESG Actions� 60%
ESG Performance� 60%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 15 of 29
Percentage of Peers
� [80%][80%] Yes
� [20%][20%] (no answer provided)
Additional context
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 20%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Process for communication of ESG-related misconduct or penalties Percentage of Peers
Elements of the entity’s communications process
Application of the communication process
Evidence provided
PD8 POINTS: 1.5/1.8
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] (no answer provided)
Additional context
Yes� 60%
Entity informs investors about misconduct or penalties� 60%
Entity informs the public about misconduct or penalties� 60%
Entity informs other stakeholders about misconduct or penalties� 60%
No communications� 0%
The entity has used one or more of these communication processes duringthe reporting period
� 60%
The entity did not use any of these communication processes during thereporting period
� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 40%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Page 16 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Risks &OpportunitiesPOINTS:8/10WEIGHT:10%
Assess and mitigate risks associated with environmental issues Percentage of Peers
Issues addressed
RO1 POINTS: 3.1/3.3
Yes� 100%
Air pollutants� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Biodiversity and habitat protection� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Energy� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Greenhouse gas emissions� 80%
Included in Risk Assessment� 80%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Invasive species� 80%
Included in Risk Assessment� 80%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 0%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 0%
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Resilience to climate change� 80%
Included in Risk Assessment� 80%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Page 17 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Evidence provided
Assess and mitigate risks associated with social issues Percentage of Peers
Issues addressed
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
RO2 POINTS: 3.1/3.3
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Water resources� 100%
Waste management� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan(s)� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Yes� 100%
Child labor� 100%
Community relations� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Customer satisfaction� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 18 of 29
Data protection and privacy� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Employee engagement� 80%
Forced labor� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Gender and diversity� 100%
Health and safety: employees� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Health and safety: customers� 100%
Included in Risk Assessment� 100%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Health and safety: community� 80%
Supply chain health and safety� 20%
Included in Risk Assessment� 20%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Labor standards/working conditions� 80%
Included in Risk Assessment� 80%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Discrimination� 80%
Included in Risk Assessment� 80%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Page 19 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Evidence provided
Assess and mitigate risks associated with governance issues Percentage of Peers
Issues addressed
Percentage of Peers
� [100%][100%] No
� [0%][0%] Yes
Additional context
RO3 POINTS: 1.4/3.3
Mitigation Actions Implemented 20%
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Yes� 100%
Audit committee structure/independence� 40%
Board composition� 100%
Bribery and corruption� 100%
Compensation committee structure/independence� 40%
Included in Risk Assessment� 40%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Executive compensation� 40%
Included in Risk Assessment� 40%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Fraud� 80%
Independence of Board chair� 80%
Lobbying activities� 80%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 20 of 29
�
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [100%][100%] No
� [0%][0%] Yes
Additional context
One share/one vote� 0%
Political contributions� 20%
Whistleblower protection� 20%
Other
Legal [ACCEPTED]
� 0%
Included in Risk Assessment� 0%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 0%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Page 21 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Assess and mitigate risks associated with governance issues Percentage of Peers
Issues addressed
RO3 POINTS: 1.4/3.3
Yes� 100%
Audit committee structure/independence� 40%
Board composition� 100%
Bribery and corruption� 100%
Compensation committee structure/independence� 40%
Included in Risk Assessment� 40%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Executive compensation� 40%
Included in Risk Assessment� 40%
Addressed in Mitigation Plan� 20%
Mitigation Actions Implemented� 20%
Fraud� 80%
Independence of Board chair� 80%
Lobbying activities� 80%
ImplementationPOINTS:7/8WEIGHT:7.5%
Examples of ESG management and performance Percentage of Peers
IM1 POINTS: 7/7.5
Additional context
Yes� 80%
No� 20%
[Not provided]
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 22 of 29
Monitoring & EMSPOINTS:8/10WEIGHT:10%
Environmental Management System Percentage of Peers
Describe the EMS
Aligned with third-party standard
Verified or certified by a third-party
Evidence provided
ME1 POINTS: 3.2/5
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
Yes� 100%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate theappearance and format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomiseddata and does not include any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data maycontain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Yes� 100%
ISO 14001� 80%
BS7750� 0%
EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme� 0%
Other� 20%
No� 0%
Yes� 40%
No� 60%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [20%][20%] No
� [20%][20%] (no answer provided)
Additional context
Environmental performance data 80%
Social performance data� 20%
Governance performance data� 0%
Other data� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 20%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Collection of ESG performance data Percentage of Peers
Type of ESG data collected by the entity
ME2 POINTS: 5/5
Yes� 80%
�
Page 23 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
StakeholderEngagementPOINTS:10/10WEIGHT:10%
Stakeholder engagement program Percentage of Peers
Elements included
Aligned with third-party standards and/or guidance
Evidence provided
SE1 POINTS: 5/5
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
Additional context
Yes� 100%
Planning and preparation for engagement� 100%
Implementation of engagement plan� 100%
Program review and evaluation� 100%
Yes� 0%
AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement standard� 0%
International Association for Public Participation spectrum,Australasia
� 0%
UNEP Stakeholder Engagement Manual� 0%
Other� 0%
No� 100%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Actions taken to implement stakeholder engagement program Percentage of Peers
SE2 POINTS: 4.8/5
Additional context
Yes� 40%
No� 60%
[Not provided]
Page 24 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS:17/30WEIGHT:30%
Output
Measures of output Percentage of Peers
Types of information included in evidence
Evidence provided
PI1 Not scored
History
Indicator Units Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
PI 1 (continued)
Passengers persons 2000 20011 12000 20000 200001 119
Percentage of Peers
� [80%][80%] Yes
� [20%][20%] No
Additional context
Yes� 80%
Methods and calculations underlying output metrics� 20%
Interpretation of output metrics and targets� 20%
Other� 0%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
No� 20%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 25 of 29
Energy &Emissions Energy generation and purchase Percentage of Peers
Greenhouse gas emissions Percentage of Peers
PI3 POINTS: 0/4.3
Additional context
PI4 POINTS: 0/4.3
Additional context
Yes� 60%
No� 40%
[Not provided]
Yes� 0%
No� 100%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here.
Page 26 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Types of information included in evidence
Evidence provided
Percentage of Peers
� [60%][60%] Yes
� [20%][20%] No
� [20%][20%] (no answer provided)
Additional context
Methods and calculations underlying output metrics� 0%
Interpretation of output metrics and targets� 0%
Other� 0%
No� 20%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Health & SafetyHealth and safety performance Percentage of Peers
PI2 POINTS: 1.4/4.3
Employees
History Targets
Indicator Units Baseline 2013 2014 2015 2018
PI 2 (continued)
Fatalities Number 0 0 1 0
Reportable injuries Number 16 14 12 5
Yes� 80%
Air pollutant emissions Percentage of Peers
PI5 POINTS: 0/4.3
Additional context
Yes� 0%
No� 100%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Water & WasteWater use Percentage of Peers
Types of information included in evidence
Evidence provided
PI6 POINTS: 2.1/4.3
Withdrawals
History
Indicator Units Baseline 2013 2014 2015
PI 6 (continued)
Water Supply US gal 180000 190000 200000
Percentage of Peers
� [40%][40%] Yes
� [40%][40%] No
� [20%][20%] (no answer provided)
Yes� 60%
Methods and calculations underlying output metrics� 0%
Interpretation of output metrics and targets� 0%
Other
Water Estimation Methodology; Water Records [ACCEPTED]
� 0%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 27 of 29
Additional context
No� 40%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Waste generation and disposal Percentage of Peers
PI7 POINTS: 0/4.3
Additional context
Yes� 60%
No� 40%
[Not provided]
Biodiversity &Habitat Biodiversity and habitat Percentage of Peers
PI8 POINTS: 0/4.3
Additional context
Yes� 0%
No� 100%
[Not provided]
Certifications &AwardsPOINTS:0/8WEIGHT:7.5%
Certifications
Entity level certifications for ESG-related management and/or performance Percentage of Peers
CA1 POINTS: 0/3.8
Additional context
Yes� 20%
No� 80%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not
Page 28 of 29 GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC
Project level certifications for ESG-related management and/or performance Percentage of Peers
CA2 POINTS: 0/3.8
Additional context
Yes� 0%
No� 100%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Awards & CaseStudies Awards for ESG-related actions, performance, or achievements Percentage of Peers
ESG case studies, research or similar publications Percentage of Peers
CA3 Not scored
Additional context
CA4 Not scored
Additional context
Yes� 40%
No� 60%
[Not provided]
Yes� 0%
No� 100%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearanceand format of GRESB’s assessment. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does notinclude any real data submitted in the 2016 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
GRESB Benchmark Report 2016 for Sample Asset — 21 Oct 2016 4:02:14pm Fri UTC Page 29 of 29