Global Results
Global response rate
This year 903 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers participated in the Real Estate Assessment, an increase of 6% on the previous year. The Assessment now covers more than 79,000 assets (of which more than 49,000 reported at the asset level) across 64 countries and represents over USD 3.6 trillion in gross asset value.
Highlights:
-
- The listed real estate dataset covers 207 entities representing 61.2% coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices. This includes 75 of the top 100 largest REITs by market cap. Adding our Public Disclosure Dataset, the data has full coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices.
- The non-listed real estate dataset covers 666 private entities, representing 75 of IPE’s Top 100 Real Estate Investment Managers (participating with at least one fund).
- In its third and final year, the voluntary Health & Well-being Module was filled out by 297 entities (32.3% Real Estate Assessment participants and 51.7% developers) – Go to the Health & Well-being Module
- In its inaugural year, the voluntary Resilience module attracted 114 standing real estate investment portfolios (13% Real Estate Assessment participants). – Go to the Resilience Module
GRESB Model
The 2018 global average GRESB Score increased to 68, up from 63 in 2017. This strong improvement reflects the industry’s commitment to further integrate best practices related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
- Average score – Listed companies: 69 (2017: 66)
- Average score – Private companies / funds: 67 (2017: 62)
- Both sectors (i.e. listed and non-listed) are evenly represented across the 5 quintiles
Highlights:
- 78% entities benchmarked using the 2018 Assessment qualify as Green Stars, an increase from 70% in 2017. This means that 78% of the 2018 participants obtained a score higher than 50 on both dimensions (IM and MP) and signal an integrated organizational approach towards measurement and management of environmental key performance indicators.
The benchmark is comprised of 874 entities, divided in 5 equal groups (i.e. quintiles) based on their overall score. The most competitive quintile is the one representing the 4* rated entities, where the difference between the minimum and maximum overall score is of only 8 points - The 4* entities are mostly diversified (38%), office (25%), retail (13%) and residential (13%)
- The GRESB 5* rated entities (top 20% entities by Overall Score) show leadership on the reduction of resource consumption and innovation in measures beyond energy efficiency. The lowest score of a 5star rated entity this year was 82.23 points.
- The 5* rated group has a balanced representation of office portfolios (34%), diversified (26.8%), retail (25.7%). The remaining of 13.14% is allocated to residential, industrial, healthcare and hotel portfolios.
- The GRESB 1* rated entities (bottom 20% entities by Overall Score) have an average MP score of 52.63, and an average IM score of 36.8. This confirms that most real estate portfolios have an inward-looking approach when developing their sustainability strategy and start by defining their governance and social commitments. The environmental performance of the real estate assets becomes a direct consequence of the management’s commitment to investing in measures and programs that stimulate resource efficiency and social accountability.
Regional GRESB Scores and Coverage
The 2018 benchmark covers 61.2% listed real estate market. Adding our Public Disclosure Dataset,the data has full coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices.
Highlights:
- The listed real estate dataset covers 207 entities representing 61.2% coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices. This includes 75 of the top 100 largest REITs by market cap. Adding our Public Disclosure Dataset, the data has full coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices.
- The non-listed real estate dataset covers 666 private entities, representing 75 of IPE’s Top 100 Real Estate Investment Managers (participating with at least one fund).
- In its third and final year, the voluntary Health & Well-being Module was filled out by 297 entities (32.3% Real Estate Assessment participants and 51.7% developers) – Go to the Health & Well-being Module
- In its inaugural year, the voluntary Resilience module attracted 114 standing real estate investment portfolios (13% Real Estate Assessment participants). – Go to the Resilience Module
GRESB Scores
First time participants enter the benchmark with an all-time high score. Australia maintains its leadership position but the performance gap between the regions is narrowing.
The GRESB cohort is adapting faster and improving performance at a higher pace. GRESB is connecting companies and funds at the beginning of their sustainability journey with a community of leaders, helping them to close the performance gap.
Not only has the GRESB benchmark grown from less than 200 participants in 2010 to more than 900 in 2018, but first time participants are achieving an ever high GRESB score: 56 (2017: 52).
The average score of the 42 entities who have been consistently reporting for 9 years is 80.03. More than half (55%) of these companies made their way to the top of the benchmark and are now 5*rated entities. Click here for the global breakdown of performance by property type.
GRESB Aspects
Management
- The global performance in ESG management performance has stabilized over the past years.
- More organizations have sustainability objectives in every aspect of E, S, and G and they are integrated better within the sustainability strategy.
- Having clear ESG accountability within the organization leads to better performance on sustainability. More than 80% of GRESB participants address ESG issues in employee performance targets and on average, they score 21 points higher than the ones do not.
Policy & Disclosure
According to the results of the 2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment, 81% of participants monitor diversity indicators for governance bodies. The most frequently monitored indicator across all regions is gender diversity (78%), followed by age (61%), board tenure (50%), and racial diversity (48%).
Diversity metrics by region
However, some regions pay more attention to specific metrics than others. For example, North American companies tend to prioritize racial diversity relatively more so that other regions (63.18% in North America vs. 47.51% on average).
The region that clearly sets itself on this topic is Australia/NZ, with more than 96% of respondents monitoring and reporting on this metric. More than 75% of these respondents consider gender, age and board tenure as a priority.
Risks & Opportunities
Energy consumption, water consumption, and waste management are key indicators of environmental performance in real estate portfolios. Implementing efficiency measures is one of the most effective ways to improve the performance of an asset and a portfolio.
More than 90% of the entities implemented efficiency improvement measures (energy, water, or waste) during the last four years, and more than 70% implemented measures for all three aspects.
Risk assessment breakdown
- The vast majority of the 2018 GRESB participants have incorporated ESG issues into their standard Due Diligence process for new acquisitions, as well as part of their risk assessments for standing investment.
- Building safety, regulatory risk, and energy efficiency are the most frequently tested topics; whereas climate change and resilience are the least incorporated.
- A little more than 50% of the entities address climate change and resilience in their risk evaluation.
Monitoring & EMS
Use of an aligned or certified Environmental Management System (EMS) framework, such as ISO 14001, provides assurance to both the business and external stakeholders that environmental impacts are measured and acted upon using a recognized and proven methodology.
- In 2018, more than 70% of participants have an EMS in place.
- In more than 80% of the cases, the EMS is aligned with ISO 14001.
- More than a third of the EMS systems aligned with ISO 14001 are certified.
Building Certifications
Approximately 11% of the total floor area of assets included in the 2018 benchmark has a green building certification awarded for design, construction or refurbishment. Almost twice as many participants obtained an operational building certification. Of all property types, offices showed the highest percentage of floor area for which an operational green building certification was obtained, namely 47%.
Retail and Hotel followed suit, with roughly 23% of the total floor area being certified. Some 40% of all participants obtained an energy rating for their portfolios. Energy ratings are increasingly made mandatory, which explains the relatively high percentage of covered floor area.
Stakeholder engagement
- Real estate companies engage with their stakeholders actively through satisfaction surveys and passively, through grievance mechanisms.
- An impressive 95% participants have a grievance mechanism for employees, compared to 85% for tenants.
- Surveys are the most frequently used method for receiving feedback from tenants and employees. GRESB participants recognize the value of engaging with their stakeholder – 84.55% reporting companies conduct an employee satisfaction survey, while only 74.03% choose to involve their tenants in a similar exercise.
- On the other hand, the data shows that the information collected from tenants is leveraged more structurally and incorporated in Net Promoter Scores. This is not common practice yet, but we expect this trend to pick up fast over the coming years.
- Overall, asset managers appear to use the feedback collected from tenants as an evaluation tool for property management (86%). Understanding tenant needs takes a secondary position and less than half (41%) of the real estate companies surveying their tenants are looking to understand whether the services they provide are perceived as good value for money.
| Employees | Tenants | |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction survey | 84.55% | 74.03% |
| Performed internally | 86.5% | 93.8% |
| Net Promoter Score | 19.5% | 28.7% |
| Overall satisfaction score | 77.5% | 86.9% |
| Satisfaction with communication | - | 77.7% |
| Satisfaction with responsiveness | - | 77.3% |
| Satisfaction with property management | - | 85.9% |
| Understanding tenant needs | - | 77.9% |
| Value for money | - | 41.0% |
| Other | 20.16% | 23.0% |
| Performed by an independent third party | 76.32% | 75.73% |
Green Leases
One of the key challenges for real estate companies and funds with limited operational control on a large proportion of their portfolio is to obtain sufficient consumption data in order report accurately to their stakeholders.
According to the 2018 results, contractually engaging with tenants in order to share performance data of their occupied rent space proves to be an efficient tool for participants to achieve significantly higher data coverages.
Introducing “information sharing” clauses in rent leases allows GRESB participants to benefit from higher data coverages on a consistent basis, regardless of the consumption type.
Performance indicators
Like-for-Like Change of Key Performance Indicators
The focus on energy efficiency strategies is reflected in the 2.47% average reduction in energy consumption. This is coupled with an important 4.91% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for Scope 1, Scope 2, as well as Scope 3 emissions (associated with tenant operations). There are no notable differences in water reduction, but the stable 0.5% like-for-like reduction has a positive net effect. The real estate industry diverted more waste from landfill: 56.5% (compared to 52.9% in 2017).
Intensity calculations account for external factors, such as weather conditions or occupancy rates, and can normalize for their effects. However, intensities can vary greatly between different property types.
Third Party Review
The past five years have seen a transformation in the real estate industry with third party reviews of ESG data becoming mainstream. 83% of energy consumption data was subject to a third party review in 2018, an increase of 43% compared to 2014. The same trend applies to water consumption data, with 77% reviewed by a third party in 2018.
Third-party reviews provide confidence on the integrity and reliability of the reported data. Of the three levels of third party reviews, external checks were the most popular form of review, selected by almost half of all 2018 participants. These checks also grew the fastest at an average of 27% annually since 2014. However, as Verification and Assurance services require reviewers to be accredited professionals, they provide a higher level of data scrutiny.
This trend confirms the eagerness of the real estate industry to produce better ESG quality data.
Asset-Level Reporting
Important step towards improved data quality
In 2018, GRESB introduced scores for asset-level reporting. This has led to a significant increase in the volume of asset level data reported. A record 63% of the 79,000 assets included in the benchmark were reported using one of the available asset level reporting tools.
The starting point is industry investments in third party data checks and assurance. Asset-level reporting builds on this work and ensures the transfer of information to investors in a comparable format that can be used globally across all investments.
Asset-level reporting is not mandatory, but has proven to be an important filter for identifying gaps in data availability and ensuring consistency in the interpretation of the GRESB reporting rules.
Commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals
Tracking sector progress against SDG7.3 targets
The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) cover a broad range of sustainability issues, many of them relevant for the real estate industry.
SDG 7.3 aspires to double energy efficiency improvement rates by 2030. To achieve this target, global energy efficiency has to improve by a 2.6% compounded rate between 2010 and 2030.
The overall like-for-like energy consumption reported to GRESB in 2018 is on track to meet the SDG Target 7.3. However, aggregated reported energy efficiency targets were less ambitious compared to last year, making the annualized targets no longer aligned with the target.
Tracking sector progress against SDG 13 targets
Guidance published by the UN to support the implementation of the SDGs states that in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 must be 40- 70% lower than 2010 levels. 2018 marks another year of improved ESG performance.
This graph plots yearly relative changes in actual like-for-like greenhouse gas emissions of all GRESB participants from 2010 to 2017. From this point, the projected greenhouse gas emissions are based on reported reduction targets for 2018-2050.
The long term greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by GRESB participants are generally in line with the more ambitious SDG13 requirement to reduce overall emissions by 70% by 2050
Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
With the launch of the “Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment”, the World Green Building Council is challenging real estate organizations to reach net zero operating emissions in their portfolios by 2030, and to advocate for all buildings to be net zero in operation by 2050. In 2018, only 2 participants reported to have 100% net zero portfolios, using a combination of renewable energy and carbon offsets. These are great signals for the rest of the industry, albeit vastly insufficient for reaching the global goal. However, even if this is not already reflected in performance, an increasing number of participants have already set internal targets for net zero emissions. Most examples come from Australia, which once again demonstrates the region’s leadership.
Global Sector Leaders
Global and Regional
Global
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Healthcare - Non-listed | Achmea Dutch Health Care Property Fund, Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance |
| Office - Non-listed | Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial, Lendlease |
| Retail - Non-listed | Australian Prime Property Fund Retail, Lendlease |
| Hotels - Non-listed | Bouwinvest Dutch Institutional Hotel Fund N.V., Bouwinvest REIM |
| Residential - Non-listed | Build to Rent (1), Legal and General Property Investment Management |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Listed | Castellum AB |
| Developer - Listed | China Resources Land |
| Residential - Listed | Equity Residential |
| Industrial - Listed | Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Non-listed | Hines Master Fund Management Company S.a.r.l. on behalf of Hines Real Estate Master FCP-FIS, Hines |
| Hotels - Listed | Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. |
| Diversified - Non-listed | J.P. Morgan U.S. Core, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Non-listed | J.P. Morgan U.S. Value Add, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Other - Non-listed | Leisure Fund Property Partnership, Legal and General Property |
| Developer - Non-listed | Lendlease One International Towers Sydney Trust, Lendlease |
| Diversified - Listed | Nomura Real Estate Master Fund, Inc. |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Listed | Stockland |
| Other - Listed | Swire Properties Limited |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Non-listed | Triovest Realty Advisors Inc., Triovest Realty Advisors Inc. |
| Industrial - Non-listed | UBS German Logistic Fund, UBS Global Asset Management |
| Retail - Listed | Unibail-Rodamco |
Global Partners
Regional Results
Europe Results
GRESB Model Europe
In 2018, GRESB scored and benchmarked the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of 432 European real estate funds and companies on behalf of 75 institutional investors. The data covers 78% of the listed real estate market in the region by market cap.
GRESB Aspects
The average GRESB Score for the European real estate sector increased again in 2018, reaching 66 out of 100 (compared to 62 in 2017). Once again, listed entities scored higher than their counterparts in the private sector.
Performance Indicators
Like-for-Like
With European companies and funds reducing global gas emissions by 5.6%, Europe maintains its leadership position compared to other regions. Similarly, with a 2.2% fall in water consumption, the average water consumption reduction for European participants outperforms the other regions.
EU Model Comparison
EPRA and GRESB have always shared a mission to champion our sector’s transparency. GRESB and EPRA compliment this effort by way of the GRESB annual survey and the publicly disclosed EPRA sustainability Best Practices Recommendations datasets. Both these initiatives provide credible ESG performance benchmarking and data sets which eventually further strengthen investors’ confidence in ESG performance assessment and data disclosure
Dominique Moerenhout, CEO, EPRA
The real estate sector has made significant progress in improving the environmental performance of the UK’s built environment in recent years. Whilst we have seen year-on-year improvements in sustainable practices, we must build on current momentum to ensure that we meet our ambitious targets. With the publication of the 2017 Clean Growth Strategy and the 2018 25 Year Environment Plan, the industry has welcomed the government’s long-term commitments to sustainable growth. The data produced through GRESB reporting is important to our collective endeavours, to challenge ourselves, to measure our progress and to enhance our credibility with government and our stakeholders.
Melanie Leech, Chief Executive, British Property Federation
BRE and BREEAM is proud to have continued and extended our relationship with GRESB this year. We have worked together to enhance the linkages between our digital certification platform and the GRESB reporting suite; this has enabled investors and fund managers to become even more transparent in the reporting of their investments and take credit directly for green certified real estate assets in the GRESB survey. I very much look forward to developing our relationship further with more digital integration, an even wider certification offer around multi-family assets and celebrating more success at our BREEAM Awards in March 2019.
Dr. Shamir Ghumra, Director, BREEAM
From GRESB’s early days INREV has always encouraged our members to participate in the GRESB Assessment as it underpins the broader principles of transparency; sustainability and transparency that are vital to our members and the real estate industry as a whole.
Lonneke Löwik, Chief Executive Officer, INREV
Europe Sector Leaders
Global and Regional
Regional
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Healthcare - Non-listed | Achmea Dutch Health Care Property Fund, Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance |
| Hotels - Non-listed | Bouwinvest Dutch Institutional Hotel Fund N.V., Bouwinvest REIM |
| Residential - Non-listed | Build to Rent (1), Legal and General Property Investment Management |
| Office - Listed | GECINA |
| Residential - Listed | GRIP REIT Plc |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Non-listed | Hines Master Fund Management Company S.a.r.l. on behalf of Hines Real Estate Master FCP-FIS, Hines |
| Other - Non-listed | Leisure Fund Property Partnership, Legal and General Property |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Non-listed | RBS Pension Trustees Limited, Aberdeen Standard Investments |
| Retail - Non-listed | SLI UK Shopping Centre Trust, Aberdeen Standard Investments |
| Diversified - Non-listed | SPP Fastigheter AB, Storebrand Fastigheter AB |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Non-listed | Stichting Bpf voor het Beroepsvervoer over de weg, Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance |
| Industrial - Non-listed | UBS German Logistic Fund, UBS Global Asset Management |
| Diversified - Listed | UK Commercial Property Trust |
| Retail - Listed | Unibail-Rodamco |
| Office - Non-listed | Vasakronan, Vasakronan |
Europe Partners
Australia/NZ results
GRESB Model Australia/NZ
GRESB Aspects
Performance Indicators
Like-for-Like
In mature real estate markets like Australia, there is an ever-increasing understanding that sustainability is central to business reputation and reward – investors demand it and the bottom line reflects it. Voluntary, independently assessed green building certification programs like our Green Star ratings are supporting and driving market transformation. They are vital standards in helping investors understand and measure the metrics across the full spectrum of environmental, social and economic sustainability measures, increasingly influencing the value of buildings.
As market support for sustainability continues to grow, so too does the number of Green Star-rated buildings, fit outs and communities certified by the Green Building Council of Australia, which is fast approaching 2000. Notably, Australia continues to lead the way in sustainable commercial real estate development, where innovation and competition have resulted in some of the most sustainable office spaces in the world.
GRESB is vital in driving the move towards a more sustainable built environment, allowing companies to understand where they stand regionally and globally, setting benchmarks for them to aspire to. Its provision of standardised and reliable data helps guide investor decision-making and promotes best practice, ensuring the market strives to meet the highest possible sustainability standards.Romilly Madew, CEO, Green Building Council of Australia
Australia’s property industry is committed to best practice and collaboration. Our use of world-leading environmental and energy benchmarks like Green Star and NABERS have ensured we consistently lead the global rankings in GRESB. We continue to focus our efforts on building on Australia’s leadership by supporting smart public policy to reduce emissions, as well fostering our industry’s leadership in social sustainability through collaborative action and advocacy to address modern slavery and benchmark the industry’s social impact.
Ken Morrison, Chief Executive, Property Council of Australia
Australia and New Zealand Sector Leaders
Global and Regional
Regional
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Office - Non-listed | Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial, Lendlease |
| Retail - Non-listed | Australian Prime Property Fund Retail, Lendlease |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Non-listed | Dexus Wholesale Property Fund, Dexus |
| Industrial - Non-listed | Goodman Australia Industrial Partnership (GAIP), Goodman Group |
Australia and New Zealand Partners
North America Results
GRESB Model North America
GRESB Aspects
Performance Indicators
Like-for-Like
North America Model Comparison
Successful real estate companies demonstrate good governance, transparency, and accountability when making responsible property investments. Increasingly, social and environmental responsibility is seen as not only positive branding, but also as a moral and market imperative. GRESB is the key global tool to identify relative performance through peer-to-peer benchmarking, driving increased corporate accountability, responsibility and morality by profiling the real estate industry’s sustainability efforts. REALPAC is proud to be GRESB’s Canadian country partner
Michael Brooks, Chief Executive Officer, REALPAC
Over the years, REITs have demonstrated a consistent track record of being good stewards of the environment and giving back both socially and economically to the communities they serve. GRESB has become a widely accepted and valuable benchmarking tool for measuring the progress that REITs continue to make in this important area.
Steve Wechsler, President & CEO, Nareit
For many institutional investors, ESG considerations are an increasingly important part of their investment decision making process. Incorporating ESG factors in the due diligence process is now mainstream and real estate fund managers face growing demand to track the success of their sustainably efforts. As a GRESB partner, PREA is proud of GRESB’s success in bringing sustainability benchmarking to the real estate investment industry and meeting the needs of both fund managers and investors.
Greg MacKinnon, Ph.D., CFA, PREA
North America Sector Leaders
Global and Regional
Regional
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Industrial - Listed | FIBRA Prologis |
| Residential - Non-listed | GS Chelsea Co-Investment, LP, Greystar Real Estate Partners |
| Diversified - Non-listed | J.P. Morgan U.S. Core, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Non-listed | J.P. Morgan U.S. Value Add, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Office - Listed | Kilroy Realty Corporation |
| Office - Non-listed | Lionstone Hermes Real Estate Ventures, Lionstone Investments |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Non-listed | Oxford Properties Group (OMERS), Oxford Properties Group |
| Retail - Non-listed | PLA Retail Fund II, PGIM Real Estate, PGIM Real Estate |
| Retail - Listed | The Macerich Company |
| Industrial - Non-listed | Bentall Kennedy Group |
North America Partners
Asia Results
GRESB Model Asia
GRESB Aspects
Performance Indicators
Like-for-Like
Asia Model Comparison
ANREV’s members are leading proponents of sustainability-related standards and reporting in the non-listed real estate industry. We are pleased once again to support GRESB’s ground-breaking work in this area
Alan Dalgleish, Chief Executive, ANREV
GRESB is the pre-eminent global standard-setter for transparent and meaningful ESG reporting in the real estate industry. GRESB’s expanding suite of benchmarks and analytic tools provide investors with an invaluable guide to all ESG dimensions of fund-level performance.
Peter Verwer, Chief Executive, APREA
Asia Sector Leaders
Global and Regional
Regional
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Listed | Activia Properties Inc. , |
| Residential - Listed | Advance Residence Investment Corporation , |
| Office - Listed | City Developments Limited , |
| Industrial - Non-listed | Goodman Japan Core Partnership , Goodman Group |
| Office - Non-listed | IGIS Private Real Estate Investment Trust No. 35 , IGIS Asset Management |
| Retail - Listed | Japan Retail Fund Investment Corporation , |
| Retail - Non-listed | Lendlease Asian Retail Investment Fund 1 , Lendlease |
| Diversified - Listed | Nomura Real Estate Master Fund, Inc. , |
| Diversified - Non-listed | Nomura Real Estate Private REIT, Inc. , Nomura Real Estate Asset Management Co., Ltd. |
Asia Partners
Resilience
Special Report: Resilience & Real Assets
The report draws on the results of the 2018 Resilience Module and showcases the actions taken by leading funds and companies to address the resilience challenge. It also identifies important areas for improvement, providing ten actionable recommendations for investors and real asset companies working to navigate evolving expectations for the management of climate risk and resilience.
Resilience Sponsors
Resilience Partners
Real Asset Resilience – GRESB Provides a Snapshot of Industry Leadership, Risk Management, Strategy, and Performance
Resilience is the ability of an organization or asset to survive and thrive in the face of shocks and stressors. Shocks are commonly understood to be short-term, acute events, such as fires, floods, or earthquakes. Stressors are long-term, chronic conditions, including sea level rise, population growth, or income inequality. Shocks and stressors combine to create risks and, in some cases, opportunities for real asset investors.
As long-term, illiquid investments, real assets are particularly vulnerable to changing conditions, as their value is intrinsically linked to their location, surrounding community, and circumstances. The last year reinforced the perceived vulnerability with a series of high-level shocks, including fires, floods, earthquakes, and extreme heat. According to Aon Benfield, global weather-related disasters in 2017 cost $344 billion with $132 billion covered by insurers. These bottom-line impacts have been recognized by institutional investors, most notably including the release of influential guidance from the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD). The TCFD recommended disclosure of information related to governance, risk management, strategy, and performance metrics.
In 2018, GRESB launched a supplemental Resilience Module to help real asset companies and funds meet these emerging expectations. Over the following two years, the Module and core GRESB Assessments will evolve to facilitate resilience-related communication between investors and investments, supporting GRESB’s mission to enhance and protect shareholder value.
Participation
In its first year, 121 property companies, real estate funds and developers participated in the GRESB Resilience Module. The resulting dataset provides investors and participants with unique insights into broad areas of corporate management aligned with the TCFD Recommendations, including governance, risk assessment, business strategy, and performance metrics. In some cases, the combination of the GRESB Assessments and Resilience Module go beyond the climate-focussed TCFD Recommendations, with opportunities to report and benchmark additional shocks and stressors, such as social disruption, natural hazards, or terrorism.
Resilience Indicators
The Resilience Module includes eight broad indicators related to corporate governance, risk management, business strategy, and performance measurement.
The chart below illustrates the percentage of real estate entities answering “yes” to each indicator. The chart shows that over 90% of participants have a senior employee responsible for resilience and more than 80% report taking specific actions to promote resilience. Just over 50% of participants indicated that they were able to describe specific shocks or “near miss” events during the reporting period.
Note, this is the most aggregated possible illustrate of the individual metrics. Each broad response is associated with a large of answer choices that provide more detailed information. Results from specific answer choices and core assessment performance indicators (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, etc.) will be presented in a follow-up report.
Responses for each Resilience Module indicator by GRESB Real Estate participants.
Performance Across Indicators
The achievement of individual indicators is important. However, effective management of resilience requires systematic and coordinated action. For example, responsible and qualified leadership is necessary, but not sufficient without action on risk assessment, on-the-ground strategy implementation, and performance evaluation. This makes it important to look at the achievement of multiple indicators. This conjoint analysis provides insights about the management of entities across multiple resilience-related areas.
The box plot below illustrates the comprehensiveness of resilience activities for 4 market segments. The x-axis is broken into 4 groups with 28 property companies in each group. The least comprehensive entities are on the left and the most comprehensive on the right. The y-axis presents the average number of possible resilience-related activities reported for each group. Higher numbers represent more responses and, by implication, more comprehensive programs. The height of the box illustrates variance within each market segment.
Comparison of comprehensiveness of responses for four market segments
The chart highlights the bimodal nature of responses to the Resilience Module. The entities with the least comprehensive programs (the leftmost box) reported on 20% of possible data elements. The entities with the most comprehensive programs (the rightmost box) reported on more than 75% of possible data elements. This indicates systematic differences in resilience-related activities, even among this self-selected group of Resilience Module participants.
Some companies are doing many different things to assess risk and manage resilience. Others are doing just a few. It is impossible to judge whether simply reporting more activity can be interpreted as “better” or less risky. However, the structure of the GRESB indicators means that high scoring entities are more likely to have a combination of accountable leadership, systematic risk assessment, on-the-ground implementation action, and, in some cases, measurement of events and outcomes. The presence of activity in all four of these areas is a measure of effective management.
Resilience Module Scores
Overall, the average Resilience Module Score received by real estate participants was 74. The average Resilience Module score for the 37 infrastructure assets was 61. In addition, of the 121 participants, 27 real estate companies and funds (22%) received the highest possible module score of 100.
Notably, real estate Resilience Module participants strongly outperformed non-Module participants in the 2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment. Module participants received an average GRESB Score of 77, compared to an overall average of 68.
The GRESB Resilience Module Reference Guide notes that scoring the first year was intentionally generous. Future years will see more emphasis on the quality of responses, the contents of evidence, and, ultimately, quantitative performance indicators.
Conclusions
Trends and forecasts in environmental and social shocks and stressors are rapidly increasing awareness about the need to consider resilience in the design, operation, and acquisition of real assets. The TCFD Recommendations draw clear connections to bottomline, financial performance and begin to provide a framework for disclosure. However, these are early days, and market participants should anticipate rapid change in investor expectations, and prevailing practices.
Data from the GRESB Resilience Module show that a significant fraction of real estate and infrastructure GRESB participants are beginning to pay attention to resilience. Most respondents have:
- Established clear internal leadership;
- Conducted social and environmental risk assessments;
- Begun implementing strategies during development, operations, and acquisition; and
- Some are collecting data about shocks, stressors, impacts, and near-miss events.
The quality and impact of these actions remains impossible to evaluate. In other words, an analyst can see that these management systems and actions exist, but it is not yet usually possible to evaluate if they work as intended. This is not a judgement on any specific company, rather it is an observation about the apparent state of the industry at this point in time. This situation will change as disclosure about resilience-related management and practice is combined with key outcome measures, such as loss rates, asset value, and operating income.
Moving forward, market participants can expect a shift from a qualitative assessment of how resilience is managed to a quantitative evaluation of risk, mitigation actions, and (residual) outcomes. This transition will take time, particularly to develop standards, guidelines, and technology needed to consistently communicate about risks, actions, and outcomes. Analogous tools exist in other industries, such as aviation or medicine, but they are not yet readily available for property or infrastructure.
Resilience Module Participants
| Name | Listed | Governmental | Non-listed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advance Residence Investment Corporation | |||
| AEW Capital Management | |||
| Alberta Investment Management Corporation | |||
| Altarea Cogedim | |||
| AMP Capital Investors | |||
| Arch Capital Management Co. Ltd. | |||
| ASB Real Estate Investments | |||
| Beacon Capital Partners, LLC | |||
| Bentall Kennedy Group | |||
| Boston Properties | |||
| Bouwinvest REIM | |||
| Brookfield Office Properties Australia Pty Ltd | |||
| Brookfield Property Partners | |||
| Canary Wharf Group plc | |||
| CBRE Global Investors | |||
| Cbus Property | |||
| Cegereal | |||
| Charter Hall | |||
| Charter Hall Retail REIT (CQR) | |||
| China Resources Land | |||
| CIM Group | |||
| CITIC Capital | |||
| City Developments Limited | |||
| Colony Capital Inc. | |||
| CommonWealth Partners | |||
| Crown Property Management Inc. | |||
| Damien Liot | |||
| Duke Realty Corp | |||
| Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust | |||
| Frasers Property Australia | |||
| Frasers Property Australia Pty Limited | |||
| GECINA | |||
| Growthpoint Properties Australia | |||
| GWL Realty Advisors | |||
| GWL Realty Advisors Inc. | |||
| Hang Lung Properties Limited | |||
| Hermes Real Estate | |||
| Hines | |||
| Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. | |||
| Hudson Pacific Properties, INC. | |||
| Hulic Co., Ltd. | |||
| Inmobiliaria Colonial | |||
| ISPT | |||
| Ivanhoe Cambridge | |||
| J.P. Morgan Asset Management | |||
| Jamestown Properties | |||
| Japan Prime Realty Investment Corporation | |||
| Japan Real Estate Investment Corporation | |||
| JBG SMITH | |||
| Kenedix Office Investment Corporation | |||
| Kilroy Realty Corporation | |||
| L&B Realty Advisors, LLP | |||
| Landcom | |||
| Landsec | |||
| Lendlease | |||
| Local Government Super | |||
| Long WALE REIT | |||
| MetLife Investment Management | |||
| Morgan Stanley | |||
| National Real Estate Advisors LLC | |||
| New World Development Company Limited | |||
| Oxford Properties Group | |||
| P3 Group S.a r.l. | |||
| Paladin Realty Partners, LLC | |||
| Parkway, Inc. | |||
| Pro-invest International Asset Management Limited | |||
| Prologis | |||
| QuadReal Property Group | |||
| Redefine Properties Limited | |||
| RXR Realty | |||
| SATO Corporation | |||
| Sekisui House Reit, Inc. | |||
| Shorenstein Properties, LLC | |||
| Sino-Ocean Group Holding Ltd | |||
| SM Prime Holdings | |||
| Stockland | |||
| Storebrand Fastigheter AB | |||
| Summit Hotel Properties, Inc. | |||
| Swire Properties Limited | |||
| Technopolis Plc | |||
| The Crown Estate | |||
| The Dermot Company, L.P. | |||
| The Macerich Company | |||
| The UNITE Group Plc | |||
| The UNITE Group Plc | |||
| TIER REIT | |||
| Time Equities, Inc. | |||
| Triovest Realty Advisors Inc. | |||
| UBS Asset Management | |||
| Unibail-Rodamco | |||
| Vicinity Centres Direct Portfolio |
Health & Well-being
The promotion of human health and well-being has been a long-standing value for responsible investors and property companies interested in creating superior, green buildings and places. This has been reflected in attention to issues like indoor environmental quality, location, services, and materials selection. Over the last several years, these issues have grown in prominence, along with an emphasis on the development and operation of spaces, buildings, and even entire communities that intentionally promote health, well-being, and productivity. Property owners have found that this emphasis is aligned with the interests of high-value tenants, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
GRESB recognized these global trends, and, in 2016, launched the GRESB Health & Well-Being Module as a supplement to the Real Estate Assessment. The new Module provided new indicators to understand how property companies are acting on health and well-being, including information about leadership, needs assessment, business strategy, and performance measurement. Since that time, the Module has provided valuable insights into a fast-moving global issue. With the release of the 2018 results, the Module has served its purpose as an exploratory vehicle and incubator for new indicators. Next year, a selection of health promotion indicators will be incorporated into the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, effectively becoming a reporting requirement for all GRESB participants.
Participation
The GRESB Health & Well-Being Module provides companies, funds, and investors with a tool to understand and compare health promotion practices and performance. The Module has benefited from robust participation – a 71% increase since its initial release in 2016.
Each year has seen a significant increase in the number of companies distinguishing themselves as leaders by taking action to promote health for their employees and customers.
Health & Well-being Module Participants
| Name | Legal status | Health and Well-being Leader | Three-years participation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advance Residence Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| AEW Capital Management | Non-listed | ||
| AEW Europe | Non-listed | ||
| AEW UK Long Lease REIT plc | Listed | ||
| AEW UK REIT plc | Listed | ||
| AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT | Listed | ||
| Alberta Investment Management Corporation | Non-listed | ||
| Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Alpha Investment Partners Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| Altarea Cogedim | Listed | ||
| Altera Vastgoed NV | Non-listed | ||
| American Realty Advisors | Non-listed | ||
| AMP Capital Investors | Non-listed | ||
| AMP Capital Investors Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| Amundi Asset Management | Non-listed | ||
| Amvest | Non-listed | ||
| Amvest | Non-listed | ||
| Arch Capital Management Co. Ltd. | Non-listed | ||
| Artis Real Estate Investment Trust | Listed | ||
| ASB Real Estate Investments | Non-listed | ||
| Avanath Capital Management | Non-listed | ||
| Befimmo SA | Listed | ||
| Bentall Kennedy Group | Non-listed | ||
| Berkshire Group LLC | Non-listed | ||
| BNP Paribas REIM France | Non-listed | ||
| Boston Properties | Listed | ||
| Bouwinvest REIM | Non-listed | ||
| Brandywine Realty Trust | Listed | ||
| Brookfield Office Properties Australia Pty Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| Brookfield Property Partners (North American Core Office) | Listed | ||
| BTP | Non-listed | ||
| Canary Wharf Group plc | Non-listed | ||
| Capital & Regional | Listed | ||
| CBRE Global Investors | Non-listed | ||
| CBRE Global Investors | Non-listed | ||
| CBRE Global Investors | Non-listed | ||
| Cbus Property | Non-listed | ||
| Cegereal | Listed | ||
| Champion REIT | Listed | ||
| Charter Hall | Non-listed | ||
| Charter Hall Retail REIT (CQR) | Listed | ||
| China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd. | Listed | ||
| China Resources Land | Listed | ||
| Chongbang Holdings (International) Ltd. | Non-listed | ||
| CIM Group | Non-listed | ||
| CIM Urban REIT Properties, III | Non-listed | ||
| CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd. | Non-listed | ||
| City Developments Limited | Listed | ||
| Clarion Partners | Non-listed | ||
| COFINIMMO | Listed | ||
| CommonWealth Partners | Non-listed | ||
| Corporacion Inmobiliaria Vesta S.A.B. de C.V. | Listed | ||
| Corporate Office Properties Trust | Listed | ||
| Cousins Properties Incorporated | Listed | ||
| Covivio (ex-Foncière des Régions) | Listed | ||
| Credit Suisse | Non-listed | ||
| Credit Suisse Real Estate Fund Green Property | Listed | ||
| Cromwell Property Group | Listed | ||
| Crown Property Management Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| Daiwa House REIT Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| DDR Corp | Listed | ||
| Dexus | Listed | ||
| Dexus Office Trust | Listed | ||
| Dexus Property Group | Non-listed | ||
| Dios Fastigheter | Listed | ||
| DivcoWest | Non-listed | ||
| Duke Realty Corp | Listed | ||
| ECE Real Estate Partners | Non-listed | ||
| Equinix Inc. | Listed | ||
| Evia Real Estate Management Pte Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| Extra Space Storage Inc. | Listed | ||
| Federal Capital Partners | Non-listed | ||
| Federal Realty Investment Trust | Listed | ||
| First Capital Realty Inc | Listed | ||
| Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust | Listed | ||
| Frasers Property Australia | Non-listed | ||
| Frasers Property Australia Pty Limited | Non-listed | ||
| Frasers Property Limited | Listed | ||
| Frontier Real Estate Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| Gaw Capital Partners | Non-listed | ||
| GECINA | Listed | ||
| Genesta Property Nordic | Non-listed | ||
| Gerding Edlen | Non-listed | ||
| Gerding Edlen Investment Management | Non-listed | ||
| GID Investment Advisers LLC | Non-listed | ||
| Global Logistic Properties Limited | Non-listed | ||
| Godrej Properties | Listed | ||
| Godrej Properties Ltd. | Non-listed | ||
| Goodman Group | Non-listed | ||
| Goodman Group (GMG) | Listed | ||
| Government Properties Income Trust | Listed | ||
| Grainger plc | Listed | ||
| Great Portland Estates plc | Listed | ||
| GRIP REIT Plc | Listed | ||
| Grosvenor Fund Management | Non-listed | ||
| Grosvenor Fund Management | Non-listed | ||
| Growthpoint Properties | Listed | ||
| Growthpoint Properties Australia | Listed | ||
| GWL Realty Advisors Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| GWL Realty Advisors Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| Hang Lung Properties Limited | Listed | ||
| Harrison Street Real Estate Management, LLC | Non-listed | ||
| Hartelt Fund Management | Non-listed | ||
| Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan | Non-listed | ||
| Hemsö Fastighets AB | Non-listed | ||
| Hermes Real Estate | Non-listed | ||
| Hines | Non-listed | ||
| Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Hudson Pacific Properties, INC. | Listed | ||
| Hulic Co., Ltd. | Listed | ||
| Hyprop Investments Limited | Listed | ||
| IDERA Capital Management Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| INMOBILIARIA COLONIAL, S.A. | Listed | ||
| InvenTRUST Properties | Non-listed | ||
| IRC Retail Centers | Non-listed | ||
| ISPT Pty Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| Ivanhoe Cambridge | Non-listed | ||
| J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Non-listed | ||
| Jamestown Properties | Non-listed | ||
| Japan Prime Realty Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| Japan Real Estate Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| JBG SMITH | Listed | ||
| Jonathan Rose Companies | Non-listed | ||
| Kenedix Office Investment Corporation | Listed | ||
| Keppel Land Limited | Non-listed | ||
| Kilroy Realty Corporation | Listed | ||
| KingSett Capital | Non-listed | ||
| L&B Realty Advisors, LLP | Non-listed | ||
| Land Securities Group PLC | Listed | ||
| Landcom | Government entity | ||
| Lemon Tree Hotels | Listed | ||
| Lendlease | Non-listed | ||
| Lendlease | Non-listed | ||
| Lendlease | Non-listed | ||
| Local Government Super | Non-listed | ||
| Long WALE REIT (CLW) | Listed | ||
| MacFarlane Partners | Non-listed | ||
| Mahindra Lifespace Developers Limited | Listed | ||
| Mayfair Capital Investment Management | Non-listed | ||
| McKay Securities PLC | Listed | ||
| Menkes Property Management Services Ltd | Non-listed | ||
| MetLife Investment Management | Non-listed | ||
| Mirvac | Listed | ||
| Mobimo Holding AG | Listed | ||
| Morgan Stanley Real Estate Advisor Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| National Real Estate Advisors LLC | Non-listed | ||
| New World Development Company Limited | Listed | ||
| NewRiver REIT PLC | Listed | ||
| Normandy Real Estate Partners | Non-listed | ||
| Octopus AIF Management Limited | Non-listed | ||
| One REIT, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Oxford Properties Group | Non-listed | ||
| P3 Group S.a r.l. | Non-listed | ||
| Paladin Realty Partners, LLC | Non-listed | ||
| Parkway, Inc. | Listed | ||
| PGIM Real Estate | Non-listed | ||
| PGIM Real Estate | Non-listed | ||
| PGIM Real Estate | Non-listed | ||
| Pradera | Non-listed | ||
| Pro-invest International Asset Management Limited | Non-listed | ||
| Prologis | Listed | ||
| QuadReal Property Group | Non-listed | ||
| Redefine Properties Limited | Listed | ||
| Related Fund Management, LLC | Non-listed | ||
| RXR Realty | Non-listed | ||
| SATO Corporation | Non-listed | ||
| Savills Investment Management | Non-listed | ||
| Savills Investment Management | Non-listed | ||
| Savills Investment Management (Germany) GmbH | Non-listed | ||
| Schroder Real Estate Investment Management Limited | Non-listed | ||
| Sekisui House Reit, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Shorenstein Properties, LLC | Non-listed | ||
| Sino-Ocean Group Holding Ltd | Listed | ||
| Skanska Commercial Development Nordic | Non-listed | ||
| SM Prime Holdings | Listed | ||
| Sonae Sierra | Non-listed | ||
| Stockland | Listed | ||
| Storebrand Fastigheter AB | Non-listed | ||
| Summit Hotel Properties, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Swire Properties Limited | Listed | ||
| Swiss Life Asset Management AG | Non-listed | ||
| Swiss Life Fund Management (LUX) S.A. | Non-listed | ||
| Swiss Life Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | Non-listed | ||
| Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance | Non-listed | ||
| Technopolis Plc 2014 | Listed | ||
| Terrafina | Listed | ||
| TH Real Estate & NEINVER | Non-listed | ||
| The Cadillac Fairview Corporation | Non-listed | ||
| The Crown Estate | Non-listed | ||
| The Dermot Company, L.P. | Non-listed | ||
| The GPT Group | Listed | ||
| The GPT Group | Non-listed | ||
| The Macerich Company | Listed | ||
| The UNITE Group Plc | Listed | ||
| The UNITE Group Plc | Non-listed | ||
| TIER REIT | Listed | ||
| Time Equities, Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| Tishman Speyer | Non-listed | ||
| Trinity Hudson Holdings LLC | Non-listed | ||
| Triovest Inc. | Non-listed | ||
| U.S. General Services Administration | Government entity | ||
| UBS Asset Management | Non-listed | ||
| Unibail-Rodamco | Listed | ||
| Ventas, Inc. | Listed | ||
| Vesteda Investment Management B.V. | Non-listed | ||
| Vicinity Centres | Non-listed | ||
| Vicinity Centres Direct Portfolio | Listed | ||
| Victoria Park | Listed | ||
| Vonovia SE | Listed | ||
| Workspace | Listed |
Internal and External Health Culture
The 8 indicators in the 2018 GRESB Health & Well-being Module address leadership, policy, needs assessment, implementation action and performance monitoring related to health & well-being. The Module has two areas of focus: (1) Internal: the promotion of health and well-being for employees and (2) External: the provision o products and services that promote health and well-being for tenants, customers, and other stakeholders. This parallel focus allows investors and participating companies and funds to differentiate action to benefit internal operations from action to create value through products and services.
Breakdown of qualifications
Leadership
Qualified senior leadership is a key component to the creation and maintenance of successful processes for health promotion.Since 2016, GRESB participants have placed more emphasis on the senior management team as the organizational leader for health (32% in 2018 vs 25% in 2016) rather than the existing leader for ESG (19% in 2018 vs 32% in 2016), demonstrating a new, dedicated top-down commitment to this issue.
In 2018, the Module assessed the health qualifications of both the senior decision-maker for health and their supporting team.
Participating companies report a diverse set of in-house health-related qualifications, including public health, building rating system certifications, and employee engagement.
Health & Well-being qualifications within the team that supports the senior leadership
| Type of qualification | Percentage of entities | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 43% of the team supporting the senior leadership on health & well-being issues have a relevant degree | Human Resources | 30% | |
| Medical | 13% | ||
| Public health | 4% | ||
| Other | 13% | ||
| 31% of the teams have obtained a health & well-being related professional certification | Medical | 12% | |
| Mental health certification | 12% | ||
| WELL AP | 12% | ||
| Public health | 8% | ||
| Fitwel Ambassador | 2% | ||
| Other | 12% | ||
| More than half (53%) of the organizations responded to the Health & Well-being Module require their relevant staff to attend training or coursework on the subject | Employee engagement | 47% | |
| Health and well-being | 45% | ||
| Health-promoting building operations | 27% | ||
| Health-promoting building design and construction | 25% | ||
| Medical | 18% | ||
| Other | 3% |
Policy for the promotion of health and well-being
Over 75% of participants have health and well-being policies that address both employee and tenant/customer health. Participants report that both internal and external facing policies are more focused on health promotion rather than risk mitigation. However, the focus of these policies varies. Internal policies are overwhelmingly focused on human resources (84%) compared to facility management (49%) and asset design and construction (45%). The focus of external policies is more evenly distributed across tenant engagement (63%), facility management (62%) and asset design and construction (60%), with slightly fewer policies focused on community engagement (45%).
Understand Needs & Set Goals
A majority of participants report efforts to understand the health needs of employees (88%) as well as those of tenants and customers (75%).
This type of needs assessment allows companies to create overarching health goals and deploy targeted actions to meet those goals. Participants report a variety of health goals using phrases such as “mental health”, “life balance”, and “air quality”.
To the left and below, the graph and the table show the most frequently used words for describing the health and well-being goals of organizations, both for employees and for tenants.
Top 10 most used words for health and well-being goals
| Internal goals for employees | External goals for products and services |
|---|---|
| health | health |
| employee | tenant |
| work | building |
| provide | provide |
| program | well-being |
| well-being | quality |
| mental | customer |
| access | air |
| office | safe |
| flexible | indoor |
Actions to promote health and well-being
The majority of participants report taking action to meet both internal (89%) and external (80%) health and well-being goals. However, the internal health promotion activities of participants are currently more diverse than the actions they take externally.
In 2018, the most common internal strategies include design for social interaction, providing access to medical care and lighting controls and/or daylight. The most common external strategies are all design and operation strategies, and include indoor air quality, lighting controls and/or daylight, and the reduction of toxic exposures.
Health and Well-being Metrics
A majority of participants report measuring impact internally (81%) while far fewer are measuring external impact (64%).
In 2018, companies and funds have increased the use of metrics to assess behavior and health and well-being outcomes across both internal and external spectrums. However, both remain less commonly used than metrics associated with indoor air quality and occupant experience.
Participation Growth
Continuous participation in the Health & Well-being Module leads to more structured internal and external health promotion efforts. Since 2016, participants have expanded internal and external health promotion processes, with the most consistent participants showing the greatest gains.
A higher percentage of companies that have been participating in the Module for three years have processes in place for all four aspects of health and well-being policy, needs assessment, implementation action and performance monitoring (89% with processes for employee health and 77% with processes for tenant and customer health), compared to first-year participants in the Module (with 57% having processes for employees and 36% for tenants and customers).
Health & Well-being Model
Partnership
The GRESB Health and Well-being Module and Results were developed in collaboration with the Green Health Partnership, a research and development initiative of the University of Virginia School of Medicine and the U.S. Green Building Council supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Public Disclosure
Full coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices
Transparency on ESG issues enables investors to allocate capital to efficient and sustainable real estate portfolios. Their selection can contribute to the reduction of climate and reputational risks, while betting on the upside potential of “green premiums”.
GRESB Public Disclosure measures the level of ESG disclosures by REITs and listed property companies. The analysis is based on information collected by GRESB from publicly available sources and covers over 450 constituents (which corresponds to full coverage of the major developed listed real estate indices). Constituents can review their collected data from 1st April through 1st July each year, parallel to the GRESB Real Estate Assessment.
Assessment participants have a higher disclosure level
Now in its second year, the analysis shows a clear improvement in the depth and breadth of ESG disclosure by property companies in all regions. We see notable developments coming from Asian constituents, particularly from Hong Kong and Japan. This is testament to the fact that markets can quickly catch up on best practices and companies have the means to adapt to investor and regulatory pressures.
Similar to last year, participants in the 2018 GRESB Assessment far outperform other listed companies and REITs in their ESG disclosure practices. Over half of the GRESB benchmark (51.74%) received the highest level (A) of recognition for the complexity of their disclosure (up from 49.7% in 2017) signaling alignment with industry best practices.
This is particularly noteworthy when compared to the fact that only 8.33% of companies that did not participate in GRESB received a similar recognition (3.6% in 2017).
Regional Public Disclosure levels
Average GRESB Real Estate vs Public Disclosure Scores
The ESG disclosure performance of listed property companies and REITs between countries differs significantly. European and Asian countries take the lead in ESG disclosure, North America and Australia lag behind. However, the strong year-on-year improvement of ESG disclosure practices in Hong Kong and Japan, shows that markets can catch-up quickly, if pressured by capital markets and regulators.
The 2018 GRESB Public Disclosure information includes 22 indicators, covering 4 Aspects. Each indicator is scored between zero and full points, depending on the availability of evidence and selected answer options. These indicators add up to a maximum of 70 points. On average, companies scored higher in 2018 than in 2017 (31 points in 2018, up from 26 in 2017).
Underlying this increase there are some strong regional differences:
Asia
- The 49 Japanese listed property companies and J-REITs stand for one of the most radical market improvement in terms of ESG disclosure practices. 24 companies receive a Public Disclosure level A. This evolution might be partly attributed to Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF)’s decision in July 2017 to allocate 10% of it’s holdings to Japanese companies with strong environmental, social, and governance performance. Reference – Reuters
- Japanese companies did not only improve the quality of disclosed information, but also their general sustainability performance, as shown by the GRESB Real Estate scores (average score increased from 69.33 in 2017 to 75.36 in 2018).
- Companies listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange follow a similar trend, with a 10 points net increase in scores (from 45 points in 2017). This coincides with Hong Kong’s Stock Exchange upgrade on reporting requirements. ESG disclosure is no longer a “recommended practice”, but is required on a “comply or explain” basis. Reference – HKEX
Europe
- 10 out of the 12 listed French companies covered by GRESB Public Disclosure participated in the 2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment and obtaining an impressive average GRESB Score of 83.38 (out of 100). This result is coupled with an outstanding Public Disclosure results.
- Based on a smaller sample (2 companies), Italian companies received the highest average ESG disclosure score.
North America
- The 160 U.S. listed property companies and REITs included in the analysis disclose the least on average, with 84 (52.5%) companies disclosing at the lowest Level (E).
- However, 16 U.S. companies have an A-Level disclosure (out of which 15 also monitor their performance through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment).
- In turn, only 2 out of the 25 Canadian companies analysed qualified for an A-level disclosure.
- Over the past six years, The National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts (Nareit) has encouraged its corporate members to complete the annual GRESB Assessment; and during this time GRESB has also been the basis for the annual Leader in the Light Award competition. This commitment pays off and the 2018 analysis confirms that the NAREIT Leader in the Light members outperform their peers – out of the 22 companies that enrolled in the program, 14 disclosed at an A-Level (63.63%). For more information about the NAREIT Leader in the Light program, click here.
Oceania
- 16 out of the 37 Australian companies covered by GRESB Public Disclosure participated in the 2018 GRESB Assessment. Together these received an average GRESB Score of 73.97.
- Market cap is an important predictor of ESG Disclosure Levels for Australian companies: 15 of the 19 companies with a market cap lower than 1bln USD disclosed at Level E (78.95%), and none qualified for an A-level disclosure. Conversely, none of the 18 Australian listed companies with a market cap higher than 1bln USD disclose at an E-Level, compared to 11 that disclose at an A-Level (61.11%).
Disclosure Methods and Assurance
Of the 453 listed property companies and REITs covered by GRESB Public Disclosure, 73.95% disclosed their sustainability-related performance data either through a Sustainability Report, Annual Report, Integrated Report, or on their website. Unsurprisingly, listed GRESB Participants are more transparent about their ESG practicers, with 98.48% communicating about ESG issues publicly.
However, today’s investors expect more than green talking: the quality of disclosure matters, and for investors to accurately assess a company’s sustainability performance, ESG data needs to be presented in a standardized format and checked by a third-party, similar to financial disclosures. The 2018 Public Disclosure dataset indicates that:
- Less than half of all report-based sustainability disclosures (48.12%) were aligned with a sustainability standard. The 2016 GRI Standards were most frequently used for structuring sustainability disclosures (26.58%), followed by the 2017 EPRA sBPR Standards (16.03%).
- Only 26.26% of disclosures in sustainability reports received third-party assurance, for Annual Reports this percentage was 14.64%.
- The most used sustainability assurance standards are: ISAE 3000 (55.6%), AA100AS (15.1%), ASAE3000 (12.7%).
Public Disclosure and Data Coverage
Public Disclosure Energy Coverage
Disclosure of Portfolio Data Coverage
Investors aspiring to invest in energy efficient listed real estate may find it difficult to make investment decisions using publicly available data: only 53.20% of analysed companies disclose any form of energy consumption data publicly. To make matters more difficult, only 26.05% of the companies that did publish their energy consumption values provided any context on data coverage (e.g., the number of assets for which data is disclosed, or whether the data includes tenant emissions).
The 2018 GRESB Real Estate data shows that only 20.29% listed property companies and REITs are able to collect and disclose data for 100% of their portfolio. These statistics should serve as warning to investors that use energy or carbon intensity metrics from the public domain without the context of data coverage, as the tracked companies might incorrectly appear as more efficient than it truly is.
View The 2018 GRESB Public Disclosure Universe.
Real Estate Developer Results
Response Rate
The New Construction & Major Renovations (NC&MR) Aspect of the GRESB Real Estate Assessment evaluates efforts to address ESG issues during the design, construction, and renovation of buildings.
All GRESB participants reporting on new construction and major renovation projects complete the additional NC&MR Aspect of the Real Estate Assessment, while participants that mainly focus on construction and development activities rather than the management of standing investments complete the GRESB Developer Assessment.
The Developer Assessment is fully aligned with the Real Estate Assessment, and includes the NC&MR aspect. By specifically assessing organizations that focus on construction and development activities, GRESB provides the real estate industry with more relevant comparisons and material insights into best practices in sustainable development.
This year, 336 out of the 903 GRESB Real Estate participants filled out the NC&MR Aspect. On top of that, 29 organizations participated in the Developer Assessment.
New Construction & Major Renovations
Development projects reported to GRESB
The development projects reported by the 2018 GRESB participants include more than 280 million square meters of new construction projects, with the residential sector representing the largest share of the pipeline, and close to 20 million square meters of major renovations.
Green building certifications for design and construction
4.8% of GRESB participants managing existing buildings have more than three-quarter of their portfolio certified with a green building certification at the design and construction phase. While the majority of participants (43%) are still with a much less percentage of their portfolio covered by design/construction green building certifications, generally less than 25%.
Green building certification schemes for design and construction as target
These building certifications affirm that individual projects were designed, developed and structured in ways that are consistent with independently developed environmental and social criteria.
Increasingly, participants are looking to certify their projects in the development phase: close to 50% of participants report that they aim to certify more than 75% of their development projects.
Achieving net zero emissions
With the launch of the “Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment”, the World Green Building Council is challenging real estate organizations to reach net zero operating emissions in their portfolios by 2030, and to advocate for all buildings to be net zero in operation by 2050. This means that no new buildings should be built below net-zero standards after 2030, and that existing buildings must be renovated to net zero standards at an accelerated rate.
In order to meet this ambition, buildings and fit-outs should be powered with 100% renewable electricity. This means increasing the use of on-site, or near site, renewables. This year’s GRESB results show that 43% of participants with development activities have implemented on-site solar energy generation in the design of their projects, up from 33% in 2016.
In addition, 37% of participants now have design targets of on-site renewable energy for their new construction and major renovation projects. By prioritising passive design, demand control, and efficient systems, they aim to reduce building and fit-out energy demand during the operational phase of buildings.
Community impact monitoring
Monitoring community impact helps organizations understand how their operations and new construction and major renovation projects affect local communities. This allows them to reduce negative and maximize positive social and environmental outcomes.
Among various community impact metrics, local residents’ well-being is the most considered indicator, followed by local income generation, and walkability.
In 2018, GRESB provided a ranking of the NC&MR Aspect. Participants with development activities can check their Benchmark Report for their relative performance against peers.
GRESB Developer Assessment
GRESB Developer Assessment
GRESB Developer Assessment participants are improving their ESG practices across the board, on all aspects.
GRESB Developer Model
Sector Leaders
The GRESB Sector Leader program recognizes the best performers annually from across the GRESB Assessments. Achieving sector leader status is clear recognition of best practice ESG performance by real estate companies and funds. We congratulate our 2018 sector leaders.