GRESB GLOBAL ESG COVERAGE
GLOBAL
The industry has taken great strides in recent years to increase ESG data coverage at the portfolio level, and underscore this with improved reporting at the asset level. In 2019, 89% of entities reported their environmental performance data at the asset level. This represents more than 66,000 assets of the total 100,000 assets covered by the benchmark.
1,005 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers participated in the 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment, an increase of 12% on the previous year.
The listed real estate dataset covers 240 entities, representing about 65% of the market capitalization of the major developed listed real estate indices. Together with GRESB Public Disclosure data (an additional 425 listed entities), GRESB datasets cover all major developed listed real estate indices.
The non-listed real estate dataset covers 723 private entities, representing 75 of IPE Real Assets’ Top 100 Real Estate Investment Managers (participating with at least one entity) and 47 of PERE 100: institutional capital’s top manager picks.
The 2019 global average GRESB Score increased to 72, up from 68 in 2018. Listed entities still outperform their private counterparts, but the gap has narrowed significantly.
- Average GRESB Score – Listed entities: 73 (2018: 69)
- Average GRESB Score – Private entities: 72 (2018: 67)
The regional breakdown of GRESB Scores shows Oceania (80.9) continuing to lead the world. The Scores for Europe (70.7), Americas (72.1) and Asia (72.7) have clustered, showing only small differences in performance.
Competition is highest among GRESB 4 Star entities, where a GRESB Score difference of only 6.4 points separates the highest from the lowest-performing entity. By comparison, GRESB 1 Star entities have a 59.2 point differential and an average score of 58 (56 in 2018). The GRESB 1 Star cohort is comprised of a relatively large group of first-time participants, many of whom are using the 2019 reporting period to familiarize themselves with the GRESB Assessment and identify future priorities.
| Top Limit | Bottom Limit | (Difference) | Average Score | Average IM | Average MP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5* Rated Entities | 98.2 | 85.2 | 13.1 | 89.7 | 88.4 | 93.3 |
| 4* Rated Entities | 85.2 | 78.8 | 6.4 | 82.0 | 80.0 | 87.7 |
| 3* Rated Entities | 78.8 | 70.7 | 8.1 | 75.0 | 72.5 | 82.1 |
| 2* Rated Entities | 70.6 | 61.3 | 9.3 | 66.3 | 52.0 | 78.5 |
| 1* Rated Entities | 61.2 | 2.1 | 59.2 | 47.1 | 44.1 | 56.6 |
86% of GRESB Real Estate participants received the “Green Star” status, an increase from 78% in 2018. This means they obtained a GRESB Score higher than 50 on both dimensions (Implementation & Measurement and Management & Policy), signaling an integrated approach on ESG issues.
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. First-time participants enter the benchmark with an all-time high score: 58. The average GRESB Score of the 42 entities who have been consistently reporting for 10 years is 84 (80 in 2018).
| Diversified | Retail | Office | Industrial | Residential | Hotels | Healthcare | Other | Diversified - Office/Retail | Diversified - Office/Industrial | Diversified - Office/Residential | Storage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % 5* | 10% | 29% | 33% | 13% | 15% | 12% | 13% | 35% | 17% | 15% | 14% | 0% |
| % 4* | 17% | 24% | 21% | 19% | 22% | 12% | 25% | 6% | 26% | 12% | 7% | 17% |
| % 3* | 24% | 15% | 17% | 21% | 18% | 35% | 13% | 29% | 19% | 21% | 31% | 0% |
| % 2* | 31% | 14% | 15% | 15% | 16% | 24% | 6% | 12% | 21% | 21% | 34% | 0% |
| % 1* | 17% | 18% | 13% | 31% | 30% | 18% | 44% | 18% | 17% | 30% | 14% | 83% |
DEFINING SDG MATErIality
There is an emerging recognition among GRESB Investor Members that the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a useful reference point for both guiding the intent and measuring the impact of their investments. We have defined SDG materiality for real assets which provides the foundation for our work with our governance groups to agree upon a standardized set of metrics to track the contribution of real estate and infrastructure investment towards achieving the goals.
GRESB performed the mapping exercise with a top-down approach, first beginning with the alignment to the goal, then to the target, and lastly to the indicator. The alignment was ranked on a 0-3 scale (0- “Not aligned”; 3 – “Aligned”)
In addition to the alignment mapping, we analyzed which SDGs are the most frequently addressed in public reporting by GRESB participants. The highlighted SDGs in the image are the most material to the real estate sector.
Sustainability Aspects
The GRESB Assessment is structured into seven unique sustainability Aspects, together with a separate Aspect for New Construction & Major Renovations. The 2019 data shows notable year-on-year improvements in all Aspects with the exception of Management, which remains unchanged. A selection of insights per Aspect is shown below.
SDG 5 focuses on women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making.
Participants are increasingly monitoring the diversity of governance bodies and employees, with 91% doing so in the 2019 Assessment. Gender ratio is the most commonly tracked diversity metric across all regions, with 77% of participants reporting.
Globally, the gender ratio of governance bodies is 26% women to 74% men. In Oceania, women represent 31% of governance body members, compared to 16% in Asia.
Diversity can also be tracked by looking at age groups, gender pay gap and racial diversity:
- The Americas have both the highest proportion of employees under 30 and over 50 years old.
- Participants from the Americas consider racial diversity to be a material indicator with 12% higher reporting than other regions.
- The largest discrepancy between regions is in tracking the gender pay gap. 81% of participants in Oceania track this metric, compared to 38% in the Americas.
SDG target 12.6 encourages organizations to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
The GRESB universe has consistently improved ESG disclosures, with 97% of participants reporting their ESG actions and/or performance in 2019:
- 79% of participants have stand-alone sustainability reports in 2019, compared to 68% in 2017.
- Entity-level sustainability report disclosures increased from 33% to 46%.
- ESG reporting in annual reports increased from 63% of participants in 2017 to 69% in 2019.
- 88% have a dedicated ESG section on their corporate website.
The 2019 results find larger numbers of participants making public commitments to a broader number of ESG leadership standards or groups:
- The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) continues to be the most widely adopted ESG leadership framework.
- The recommendations by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have seen rapid market adoption since their release in 2016. In 2018, 179 entities reported a public commitment to support the TCFD. The 2019 GRESB results show that 38% of GRESB participants (i.e. 363 entities managed by 130 organizations) are now publicly supporting the TCFD. Out of these 130 organizations, 73 are listed companies.
- Many GRESB participants are active in Better Buildings Partnerships (BBPs). BBPs operate globally, working with cities to improve building-related resilience and energy efficiency.
- Other ESG leadership initiatives GRESB participants included are: The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), Climate Action 100, Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Climate Bonds Partners Program, FTSE4Good, PFA21: Principles for Financial Action for the 21st century, Portfolio Decarbonisation Coalition, WorldGBC Net Zero Buildings Commitment.
SDG 8 encourages organizations to take immediate and effective measures to eradicate child and forced labor, and end modern slavery and human trafficking.
GRESB participants have increasingly adopted child and forced labor policies over the past three years. As shown in the chart, these topics are also increasingly included in organizational risk assessments. This trend aligns with policies implemented by the UK and Australian Governments mandating companies to disclose steps taken to combat Modern Slavery.
SDG 9 intents to upgrade and retrofit infrastructure and industries to make these sustainable by 2030. SDG 7 aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
The GRESB universe is contributing to SDG9 by implementing efficiency measures, which in turn impact energy, water, waste and carbon emissions.
94% of entities have implemented energy efficiency measures during the last four years. Beyond the typical retrofit of lighting systems to LED or upgrades to HVAC systems, what sets entities apart are some of the more innovative actions that have been taken:
- The increasing numbers of electric vehicles, especially in Europe, creates a growing demand for EV charging stations. GRESB participants are responding by installing EV charging stations at their properties, with some participants even creating a brand around their EV infrastructure.
- The increased use of natural daylight by way of skylight installations is leading to higher energy efficiencies. Solar reflective film on building windows and air curtains in doorways are frequently reported by GRESB participants. Some participants operate night walks to identify lights that have been left on inadvertently.
- Regarding water efficiency, 87% of entities have implemented measures to decrease water use at the asset-level. The most common actions taken by participants include the installation of efficient fixtures with occupancy sensors, xeriscaping and drip irrigation. Retrofitting older toilets to reduce water consumption is frequently reported which, in turn, generates less waste because the toilets are reused. Some of the more innovative measures reported include leak detection systems (with some participants using QR codes to report leaks), pay-to-use toilets and rainfall gauges to reduce water consumption for landscaping purposes.
- Waste efficiency measures have been implemented by 86% of entities during the last four years. Beyond the standard increase in recycling programs, waste signage, and on-site composting, some entities have begun to use more innovative measures to increase the proportion of waste diverted from landfills. Bin right-sizing, which reduces the overall number of trips made by hauler services, has seen an increase, as well as e-waste recycling programs that remove hazardous materials used in electronics from being added to landfills.
- Participants have also introduced coffee-cup recycling programs to prevent single-use cups that are typically not recyclable from making it to the landfill. Water refill stations have been consistently introduced in assets which decreases the demand for single-use water bottles. In addition, in some entities, even something as small as cigarette waste now has a recycling program.
The charts shows the main methods used by participants to monitor energy and water consumption data, as reported over the years 2017-2019. The different methods have an impact on the timeliness and reliability of the collected data.
Smart meters provide almost instantaneous meter readings, require no manual intervention and can lead to significant savings. That’s why more entities choose this method today – 44% used Automatic Meter Readings (AMR) to track energy consumption in 2019, up from 39% in 2017. For water consumption, 24% of entities reported AMR data in 2017, which increased to 27% in 2019. These positive signals suggest that the real estate industry sees the need for reliable utility data and is willing to invest in technology that facilitates access to it.
Alternative methods, which are typically less reliable and more prone to error, include engagement with utility providers or tenants. Access to tenant consumption data remains one of the biggest challenges in the real estate industry. In many markets, tenants have no legal obligation to share this data with their landlords. As a result, in many instances, the sharing of tenant consumption data is agreed via specific clauses included in lease contracts (commonly known as “green leases”).
In order for investors to fully understand the environmental impact of their real estate investment, managers need to report on the whole building, including common areas and tenant space. The GRESB results show that full data coverage for environmental performance indicators remains a challenge for participants.
The chart shows the distribution of energy data coverage (in %) from 2015. The yearly averages – shown in the color-coded boxes on the middle-left -show that participants have steadily improved their data coverage over the last four years. In 2019, the average coverage is 68.4%, an increase of 8.9 percentage points compared to 2015.
The progressive curves on the chart provide a more granular perspective. At the bottom left, the curves track participants with zero data coverage over the years. This share has decreased from 12.8% in 2015 to 3.4% in 2019. In contrast, the share of participants with 100% portfolio data coverage has remained stable since 2015, indicating that overall improvement primarily comes from managers with low initial data coverage.
- After three years of consecutive reductions, global like-for-like energy consumption increased by 0.20%.
- Global GHG emissions fell by 2.66%, a lower rate than the 4.91% reduction in the previous year. This slower reduction rate will not be enough to meet the 1.5-degree target set out by the Paris Climate Agreement.
- Water consumption is down slightly in 2019 (0.12%).
Water intensities coming soon
The past six years have been transformational for ESG data quality in the real estate industry. While submitting ESG data for third-party review was still limited in 2014, it is now considered to be common practice when it comes to energy and water data. In 2019, only 15% of reported energy data and 23% of water data is not externally reviewed, a notable improvement in just six years.
Of the three levels of third-party reviews, only external verification and assurance are required to be carried out in line with globally recognized standards.
In 2019, only 38% of energy data and 29% of water data was subject to third-party review in line with a recognized verification/assurance standard, which suggests significant potential for improving the overall data quality within the global real estate sector.
The most widely adopted standards are ISO 14064-3, ISAE 3000 and AA1000AS. Interestingly, whilst ISO 14064-3 was initially created to set principles for verifying GHG data, its requirements for selecting validators, determining the approach, and preparing validation statements widely serves as guidance when it comes to reviewing water usage data. ISAE 3000 is generally applied for sustainability audits of non-financial information, thereby requiring the involvement of accredited auditors. AA1000AS was set up as the first sustainability assurance standard and provides a platform to align the non-financial aspects of sustainability with financial reporting and assurance.
Any type of review or interaction with the data meant to filter out errors, identify outliers or identify unusual patterns, has added value to the final dataset. However, it is worth mentioning that among the three levels of third-party reviews (i.e. check, verification, assurance), only external verification and assurance are required to be carried out in line with globally recognized standards.
Most verification and assurance standards consist of quality guidelines underpinning the process of collecting and checking data through systematic, independent and documented process against predefined criteria. Such verification and assurance services can only be provided by accredited professionals, which also makes the provision of supporting evidence more straightforward compared to the other level.
The vast majority of participants that claim to assure their data can also support their statement through clear, standardized supporting evidence. The assurance process is well defined and understood in the industry, whereas data verification or data checks are often misinterpreted.
The most common reasons why supporting evidence for “Data verification” and “Data checks” was not accepted:
- Referred to the wrong consumption type (e.g., documents demonstrating the external check of water data uploaded in the energy section)
- Did not include any mention of the data verification standard used
- Did not include a third party statement (i.e., the involvement of a third party is not evidenced)
- Were not specific to the reporting entity (i.e., generic descriptions of data verification)
- Were not specific to the reporting period (i.e., documents referring to reporting year 2017, 2016, or older)
- Insufficient or inadequate translation of documents provided in languages other than English
SDG Target 7.3 aspires to double the energy efficiency improvement rate of the global economy by 2030. In order to meet this target, energy efficiency will need to improve with a 2.6% annual rate between 2010 and 2030.
The chart shows actual like-for-like energy consumption by GRESB participants falling behind the SDG target for the first time since 2010. In addition, the aggregated energy efficiency targets for 2019-2030 are not ambitious enough to meet the SDG Target 7.3. On a more positive point, more GRESB participants have set energy efficiency improvement targets: 79% in 2019 compared to 71% last year.
We see a great opportunity for the real estate sector to leverage these transparency efforts and take bolder actions to improve energy efficiency profiles ensuring alignment with national and global goals.
Two industry-leading initiatives in which companies pledge to reduce carbon emissions are the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the WorldGBC’s Net Zero Commitment. Of the 29 GRESB managers listed on the SBTi website committed to setting Science-Based Targets, 18 have set targets that were approved by SBTi.
Additionally, nine entities have committed to the WorldGBC’s Net Zero Commitment, pledging to have net zero carbon operating emissions by 2030. Notably, GRESB has identified three net-zero portfolios in the 2019 benchmark. Of all participants this year, only 29 have set targets to be net zero by 2030.
In April 2019, New York City introduced an ambitious law to curb GHG emissions of real estate properties larger than 25,000 sq ft, requiring them to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.
What makes this law unique is that it sets GHG intensity targets for individual occupancy types in the future as well as an associated penalty (USD 268 per tCO2 emitted) if buildings emit more than their allotted amount. The law puts in place property-specific intensity targets for the periods 2024 through 2029 and 2030 through 2034. In this way it enables property investors to model their future carbon costs in a “do nothing” scenario.
Methodology: GRESB has modeled estimated targets from 2034 onwards , needed to achieve an average target of 0.0014 tCO2 e/sf/yr by 2050. To understand how many assets face a “stranding risk”, GRESB property types can be matched against the NYC Occupancy types for which emission targets have been set. Next, carbon intensities for NYC buildings in the 2019 GRESB Asset Database with 100% energy consumption data coverage were calculated using the GHG coefficient numbers predefined in the law. As GRESB only collects aggregated information on fuels and district heating and cooling, GRESB reported fuels were multiplied by the natural gas emissions factor (in terms of kWh), and district heating & cooling consumption values were multiplied by the district heating emission factor, which could lead to a slight underestimation of carbon risk.
The chart shows that GRESB buildings with 100% energy consumption data coverage will likely face limited “stranding risk” in the first few years that the penalty is imposed (2024-2029). However, the number of assets not in compliance with the limit will increase substantially in later years.
As the NYC carbon reduction case study shows, property managers and owners who fail to decarbonize will face penalties if governments and regulators continue to enact on reducing impacts on climate change.
Penalties can either be direct (as in the case of NYC) or indirect through increased pricing of energy consumption. In Europe, many laws intended to improve the carbon profile of buildings set targets in the relative near term. For example, in the Netherlands, office buildings need to have a minimum energy label C by 2023 or they cannot be let out. Similarly, in the UK privately let buildings need a minimum EPC level of C since 2018 (pending exceptions, and a more stringent 2020 deadline).
Against this background, the logical next step is to calculate long term climate transition risks faced by real estate portfolios by developing a climate science-based model based on alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement. The EU-funded Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) is developing a property type-specific model based on this approach for the European commercial real estate sector. In its first public report, CRREM states that the sector will need to decarbonize by 91% by 2050 in order to align with the 1.5-degree Scenario.
By applying the CRREM model to GRESB participants who have reported asset data, we have projected the transition risk inherent within participating European commercial real estate portfolios with 100% energy consumption data coverage. The preliminary results, based on reported carbon data show a gradual increase in stranding risk over time. By 2030, 29.67% % of Office, Retail, Hotel and Healthcare portfolios will be stranded, which will rise to 74.22% % by 2050. A further analysis is underway that takes into account grid decarbonization.
More results will be available later in 2019
While the use of certification schemes is becoming more common, the fraction of total portfolio floor area covered by certificates is still low. Only 8.8% of the total floor area represented by the +100,000 assets covered in the 2019 GRESB benchmark is certified at the time of construction and 15.8% when operational.
With 48% floor area coverage, Hotel leads other property types in certified floor area, narrowly ahead of Office. Industrial and Healthcare have significantly lower building certification rates.
The charts breakdown coverage by the different certification schemes. The first chart is for construction/design and the second operational certification.
The most widely used certification scheme is LEED, followed by BREEAM and Green Star. In certain markets and for certain property types, local certifications are used more frequently.
CASBEE, DBJ and BCA Green Mark dominate the Asian market in most property sectors, while BREEAM, HQE and DGNB are preferred in Europe. BOMA’s high levels of adoption in American Industrial places the certification in the leading position for the Industrial sector globally.
Over the past years, topic-specific certification schemes have emerged, most notably focused on health and well-being. WELL (administered by the International Well Being Institute, “IWBI”) and Fitwel (administered by the Center for Active Design) have been raising awareness of how buildings can improve the well-being of occupants. Nevertheless, the number of certified buildings remains low: only 39 certified projects are covered by the 2019 GRESB benchmark.
SDG 8 encourages to protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers
Safety training and monitoring on the rise
In line with SDG 8, the GRESB universe has consistently improved in providing safety training on social issues. Employee safety training increased by 12%, customer/tenant safety training by 10% and community safety training by 8%.
Regionally, Oceania leads with 86% of entities providing training on safety issues. Europe lags Oceania by around 20 percentage points for both community safety and customer/tenant safety training.
95% of participants monitor at least one metric related to employee safety. Once again, Oceania leads with 99% of entities monitoring employee safety compared to 88% in the Americas.
Of the 82% of entities who administer work-station and/or workplace checks in 2019, an average of 89% of employees are covered, which contributes to a healthier and safer individual working environment. 71% of Asian entities have work-station checks compared to 90% of European entities.
Absentee rates have the largest regional discrepancy of any monitoring method with 87% of entities in Oceania tracking the metric compared to only 40% of entities from the Americas. 81% of Asian entities and 78% of European entities monitor absenteeism.
Monitoring injury rates increased notably year-on-year, with 53% of all entities tracking this, compared to only 40% in 2018. 68% of Asian entities monitor injury rates compared to 45% of European entities.
87% of entities have occupational safety requirements in procurement processes which supports increased safety throughout the supply chain. This is up from 68% in 2017.
Progress being made in community engagement and impact monitoring
79% of participants monitor impact on the community, an 8% increase over 2018. Local residents’ well-being is the most widely monitored area of impact with 57% of participants tracking this, up 6% from last year.
93% of participants have a community engagement program that includes sustainability-specific issues. Of these participants, 88% support charities and community groups, while 71% have community health and well-being programs, showing the largest year-on-year increase at 8%.
Employee Satisfaction Survey
In 2019, 90% of participants administered employee satisfaction surveys within the last 4 years, up from 86% in 2018. Internal surveys were administered at a rate of 30% compared to third-party surveys at 67%. Interestingly, the split between internal and third-party surveys is almost identical to tenant satisfaction surveys.
The percentage of employees covered by both internal and third-party surveys is 93% and 97% respectively with the average survey response rate being just over 80% for both survey types. Survey response rates are much higher for employee satisfaction surveys than for tenant satisfaction surveys.
Net Promoter Score is an increasingly popular metric of gauging employee satisfaction which measures employee loyalty by asking how likely are you to recommend this company to friends and colleagues. 25% of participants measured Net Promoter Score in 2018.
When it comes to follow-up actions from the survey, 90% of participants have a program in place to improve its employee satisfaction based on the results of the survey. Each improvement program saw increases year over year and is further detailed in the Employee Satisfaction Survey Engagement visual.
Tenant Satisfaction Survey
81% of participants administered tenant satisfaction surveys in the last 4 years, up from 75% the year prior. Internal surveys were administered at a rate of 22% compared to third-party surveys at 59%.
The percentage of tenants covered by internal surveys is 70% and third-party surveys is 75%.
When looking at overall survey response rates, there are additional challenges for tenant satisfaction surveys over employee satisfaction surveys. There is a 23% decrease in response rate for internal surveys and a 31% decrease for third-party surveys when comparing tenant and employee surveys.
Internal surveys see an overall survey response rate of 70% compared to only 51% for third party surveys. For tenant satisfaction surveys, it’s also interesting to see that third-party surveys see significantly less survey response rates than internal surveys.
Net Promoter Score saw increased for tenant satisfaction surveys as well, although it is not as popular of a metric in gauging overall satisfaction for tenants. Other quantitative metrics all saw increases and is further detailed in the Tenant Satisfaction Survey Metrics visual.
84% of participants have a program in place to improve tenant satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey with feedback sessions with asset/property managers being the most popular with 81%.
DEVELOPER ASSESSMENT
Globally, most new construction activity is seen in the Residential sector (347 million m2), particularly in Multi-family assets (217 million m2). This represents a 28% increase compared to 2018.
The property sector with most redevelopment activity is Retail, with a total of 109 million m2 reported to be under major renovation. These figures are mainly representative of a handful of large North American REITs with a focus on Shopping Centers.
While North American shopping malls are being renovated, more industrial assets are being built from the ground up. More specifically, 195 million m2 of industrial assets came online in 2018 in North America (or will become operational in the short term).
96% of GRESB participants with development activities have a sustainability strategy in place for their projects. These strategies mainly account for energy and water conservation measures and waste management. Supply chain and resilience strategies are still missing from the general approach of 35% of GRESB participants.
85% have sustainability criteria as part of their site selection process – brownfield redevelopment sites and sites with good connection to multi-modal transit networks are most common.
These practices are representative of a positive trend observed for the past years. In 2014, only 60% entities had waste management policies during the development stage, while in 2019, 91% promote on-site efficient waste management.
90% of participants align their projects with green building rating standards. In addition, 45% of participants with development projects require a specific level of certification for more than 75% of their projects under development.
For the 51% of GRESB participants that choose to design on-site renewable energy generation solutions in their development projects, solar remains the most widely used source (92% of participants)
Notably, 14% of participants with development activities design their projects in accordance with net-zero energy standards.
81% of participants assess the socio-economic impact of their development activities. More specifically, 61% of reporting entities measure local residents’ well-being, while 35% look at their impact on livability scores. Overall, the socio-economic impact of assets is being more intentionally addressed during the development phase compared to the operational phase.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Ensuring healthy lives and the promotion of health & well-being has been identified as a global aspiration through SDG 3.
While health has traditionally been viewed as the responsibility of the healthcare sector, social, economic and environmental factors – referred to as the social determinants of health – have a larger impact than clinical care.
As creators of the built environment, the real estate industry is well-positioned to address key health determinants in their approach to real estate development and management.
Over the past few years, leading real estate companies have begun to view health and well-being as a new mechanism of competitive differentiation and an explicit area of potential risk reduction and value creation. Leading companies have structured their health and well-being programs to cover employees, tenants, communities and supply chains.
Health Industry Partners
GRESB participants who completed the module in previous years demonstrate a larger commitment to having a holistic health promotion process for their stakeholders compared to participants who did not participate in the module. The difference in response rates is not large which shows that health and well-being has become a relevant issue for the industry, and it’s encouraging to see the consistent market uptake of health and well-being strategies.
Overall, 11% more participants have programs in place to address health and well-being of employees as compared to tenants/customers.
Looking at the individual methods, the discrepancies can be over 20% between the two stakeholder groups. Complete and integrated processes for health promotion help entities take targeted, efficient action to create value and manage risks associated with population health and well-being.
The building industry has a long history of explicitly considering occupational and building safety in their business operations. As such, policies focused on safety are becoming more institutionalized.
This year, 95% of participants have a policy focused on occupational safety, up from 91% in 2018. Similarly, participants with policies focused on the safety of assets for tenants increased from 66% to 78%. Commonly seen throughout health and well-being related indicators, internal actions related to employees are more established than external actions related to customers/tenants. Between the two stakeholder groups, there is a 22% difference when looking at health and well-being policies compared to a 17% difference in safety policies.
Participants are implementing a variety of actions to promote tenant health and well-being. The specific strategies used varies by property type.
Managers of hotel portfolios outperform other property types on eight of the eleven actions covered in the Assessment. Retail managers use strategies focused on indoor air quality at higher rates, while healthcare managers, which include senior care, take the lead in strategies focused on healthy eating and indoor lighting.
71% of participants globally include community health and well-being in their approach to community engagement. Many participants also address key social determinants of health with 65% creating local jobs and 71% making enhancements to local public spaces. Efforts focused on resilience are less developed, with 48% of all GRESB participants including resilience in their community engagement efforts. However, this isn’t the case in Oceania, where almost 70% of entities consider community resilience.
When looking at community monitoring methods, 78% of participants monitor impact on local communities, while 56% report monitoring impact on community health and well-being. Other relevant measures include the impact on housing affordability, crime, livability, walkability and the amount of local income generated. The use of specific measures varies by region. Oceania and Asia both lead in monitoring impact on community well-being. Oceania also leads on monitoring impact on crime levels and local income generated.
While many participating companies and funds have established comprehensive approaches to employee, tenant, and community health and well-being, programs are not yet uniform or standardized across entities
Looking at all the available health-related policies and strategies, the top 25% of participating funds have implemented 80% of available actions, while the bottom 25% have implemented an average of only 26% of them.
Leading companies have comprehensive programs informed by an intentional health promotion process including policy, needs assessment, action and monitoring for health and well-being. Lagging companies have disjointed, incomplete processes for health.
Report: Health & Well-being in Real Estate
Market trends for health promotion as a new focus within ESG reporting
Drawing on findings from three years of data gathered by the GRESB Health & Well-being Module, the report provides real estate companies and investors with insights on the current state of practice and guidance on how to increase consideration of health and well-being within their approach to ESG.
The report also provides context for the decision by GRESB, in collaboration with the Green Health Partnership, to integrate health and well-being indicators from the Module into the core 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment.
The GRESB Health and Well-being 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.
Validation PROCESS and Data Standard
An open and transparent data validation process is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. GRESB operates a three-tier validation process (All Participant Check, Validation Plus, Validation Interview). Over the past years, the topics covered by the validation process and the scope of work for Validation Plus and Validation Interviews have increased significantly. The validation process is carried out by GBCI.
GRESB checks:
- The existence and content of answers to open text boxes.
- The additional information provided to Assessment Indicators, e.g.third-party organization names, assurance, audit, certification and verification standards and ‘other’ answers.
- The documents uploaded as supporting evidence for the answers provided.
- Automated outlier and consistency checks of performance data including energy and water consumption, GHG emissions and waste generation.
- GRESB identifies reported consumption values as outliers if the corresponding consumption intensity (consumption/area) and/or its change over time is abnormal relative to all reported data for a particular property type.
Supporting evidence is evaluated on the validity of the document relative to the requirements stated in the guidance for the indicator, including the actual reference to selected answer options. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence should meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide.
The outcomes of the 2019 Validation Plus process are presented below. 93% of the total 27,056 pieces of supporting evidence uploaded were accepted, following the predefined validation rules.
In cases where the supporting evidence is not accepted, the indicator is assigned a score of 0.
The most common reasons why supporting evidence was not accepted is because the document:
MA5: ESG factors included in performance targets
- Refers to future ambitions to address ESG issues in employee performance targets (i.e. the answer does not reflect the reporting period)
- Is an annual report or a sustainability report that identifies the organizational ESG targets, not linked to any group or subgroup of employees
- Does not identify the ESG issues used to evaluate the annual employee performance, but presents an overview of social initiatives carried throughout the reporting period
- Includes blanket statements that refer to “eligible employees” or “case by case basis” applicability
PD1: Policy on environmental issues
- Does not refer to reporting period (e.g. they are dated in May 2019 and do not include information about previous versions)
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
- Is too generic to be able to confirm any of the issues selected from the pre-defined answers list
PD5.1: Disclosure of ESG performance
Annual report
- Does not refer to reporting period (i.e. documents dated as far back as 2015)
- Is not an annual report, but an ESG brochure, company statement or other type of document
- Is a link to the dedicated section on company website, quarterly report or ESG reporting to investors (i.e. duplicate to other answer options)
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
Sustainability report
- Is not a standalone sustainability report, but a section in the annual report
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
- Does not reflect the applicability level identified (e.g. partial points are assigned to reports prepared at group level, when the identified reporting level is “entity”)
Integrated report
- Does not include any reference to the IIRC framework, which defines integrated reporting
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
Dedicated section on company website
- Links are not accessible and cannot be identified in more than 3 clicks
Section in entity reporting to investors
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
- Does not refer to the reporting entity
- Does not refer to reporting period
RO3.1: Due diligence on new acquisitions
- Does not refer to reporting period (e.g. they are dated in May 2019 and do not include information about previous versions)
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
- Is too generic to be able to confirm any of the issues selected from the pre-defined answers list
- Contains evidence for less than 20% selected issues from the pre-defined answers list
ME1: Environmental management systems (EMS)
- Is not an EMS document, but a checklist of environmental issues, acquisitions checklists, asset level reports prepared by property management, building certification statements, GRI / EPRA reports, etc
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
SE4.1: ESG specific requirements in the procurement process
- Is too generic to be able to confirm any of the issues selected from the pre-defined answers list
- Contains insufficient or inadequate translation of information provided in languages other than English
- Is a generic statement prepared by third party advisors that does not refer to the reporting entity
GRESB identifies reported consumption values as outliers, if the corresponding consumption intensity (consumption/area) and/or its change over time is abnormal relative to all reported data for the particular property type. Through an in-house developed statistical program, GRESB groups and benchmarks values within their property type, which allows for the identification of consumption values that fall outside normally observed ranges. Beyond reviewing the intensity of consumption, the like-for-like development of consumption over a two-year period is also used to identify abnormal data points.
Users who receive these outlier messages are alerted so as to engage an internal data review process to identify the cause of the very low consumption level prior to final submission. All participants are offered the opportunity to explain outliers; importantly, the GRESB systems are not designed to reject the submission, only to highlight the outlier for investigation by the participant so as to provide an explanation. GRESB outlier checks are meant to flag extremes — unusually low or high values as compared to independent market benchmarks, as well as to GRESB historic data. Our systems are specifically designed to draw participant attention to potential errors before final submission and require additional context where necessary. In this case, the explanation provided was not deemed sufficient to explain the values submitted.
Real Estate:
Human validated: 22,345
Pre-validated: 4,422
Automatic validation: 15,072
Automated outliers: 1,982
| Open text boxes | “Other” answers | Evidence pieces | Outliers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total # | 5 311 | 9 472 | 27 056 | 1982 |
| Accepted | 81% | |||
| Duplicates | 3% | |||
| Not accepted | 16% | |||
| Full points | 91% | 93% | ||
| Partial points | 5% | 2% | ||
| No points | 4% | 5% | ||
| Accepted, Normal | 11% | |||
| Accepted, Abnormal | 57% | |||
| Not Accepted | 32% |
Developer:
Human validated: 738
Pre-validated: 148
Automatic validation: 491
| Open text boxes | “Other” answers | Evidence pieces | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total # | 235 | 250 | 892 |
| Accepted | 72% | ||
| Duplicates | 7% | ||
| Not accepted | 22% | ||
| Full points | 89% | ||
| Partial points | 2% |
As part of its ongoing commitment to data quality, GRESB initiated a Technical Working Group (TWG) in late 2018 with the goal of developing a GRESB Data Standard. As a first step towards the development of this standard, GRESB designed a Data Quality Survey together with the TWG. This optional, unscored survey was open to GRESB Data Partners and Participants in the Real Estate Assessment that use the GRESB Asset Portal during the normal GRESB reporting period, April to July 2019.
A primary aim of this survey is to work towards the development of the GRESB Data Standard. An important secondary goal is research-oriented: to understand the current landscape of ESG data systems and investigate how to improve the overall quality and trustworthiness of ESG data in the future. This research will be used to inform the development of future versions of the survey and the standard.
13 Data Partners and 3 Real Estate Participants completed this year’s Data Quality Survey. Those 13 Data Partners supported about one third of Real Estate Assessment submissions in 2019. To recognize these respondents, a badge has been to the Benchmark Reports of the Real Estate Participants who completed the survey. A badge has also been added to the Benchmark Reports of Participants whose submission was supported by a Data Partner that completed the survey.
From the responses to this survey, it is clear that all of the participants take ESG data quality seriously. All of the responses describe measures in place to ensure that the ESG data in their systems is accurate, complete, timely, and traceable. The majority of data systems track multiple metrics of data quality, such as the number of missing meter readings vs. expected, or the expected value of a reading based on past readings. The majority of systems also automatically identify and flag missing or anomalous data, and then follow up with the data sources for clarification or rectification. Half of the data systems cross-validate their ESG data, by comparing, for example, automatic or manual meter readings against monthly or quarterly invoices.
Overall, the responses to this year’s survey indicate that GRESB Partners and Participants not only acknowledge the importance of data quality in ESG data, but also have robust, sophisticated methods in place to ensure that their ESG data reported to GRESB is of high quality.
GRESB Global Partners
RESILIENCE AND TCFD HIGHLIGHTS
In 2018, GRESB launched the Resilience Module to provide investors and participating companies and funds with information about climate risk and resilience. The Resilience Module is a three-year effort that will ultimately lead to new indicators in the core GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. In 2019, the Resilience Module was revised to increase alignment with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
| TCFD CATEGORY | RESILIENCE MODULE INDICATORS |
| Governance | RS1: Senior employee responsible for climate risk and resilience RS2: Systematic process for communication and review |
| Strategy | RS6: Resilience-related business strategies for new construction, standin assets, and acquisitions |
| Risk Management | RS3: Systematic processes to assess transition risk RS4: Systematic processes to assess social risk RS5: Systematic processes to assess physical risk |
| Metrics and Targets | RS3: Systematic processes to assess transition risk (process includes target) RS4: Systematic processes to assess social risk (process includes target) RS5: Systematic processes to assess physical risk (process includes target) RS7: Specific climate risk and resilience targets RS8: Resilience-related performance measurement and metrics |
Sharp increase in participation
Participation in the voluntary Resilience Module increased by 96% to 316 entities in 2019, up from 150 entities in 2018. This increase also reflects a broader range of entity-types, including infrastructure funds and property developers.
Responses to the eight core Resilience Module indicators indicate broad-based action to understand and manage climate risk and resilience.
The majority of participants report having dedicated leadership, systematic risk assessment, aligned business strategies, and at least some level of performance measurement.
However, reported actions vary significantly between entities. Some entities report comprehensive programs, while many have a more limited range of activities.
The responses also provide a snapshot of activity with respect to TCFD recommendations. The top quartile of entities report action in each of the top-level TCFD categories, while the trailing quartile report action in only one or two categories. Again, this illustrates significant variance in the comprehensiveness of climate risk and resilience-related activities.
Responses to the 2019 Resilience Module provide initial insights about the state of the industry with respect to climate risk and resilience, including:
- Engagement on climate risk and resilience is increasing rapidly among real asset investors, companies, and funds. Participation in the GRESB Resilience Module more than doubled since 2018.
- Interest, expertise, and engagement on climate risk and resilience varies widely across the industry. Consequently, real asset investors can not assume that companies are taking action to understand or mitigate climate-related risks.
- Approximately 25% of Resilience Module participants reported comprehensive programs with activities including governance, risk management, business strategy, and measurement.
- The remaining 75% of participants reported highly variable programs, often lacking any activity in one or more of the core categories recommended by the TCFD.
- Most entities report some level of climate-risk and resilience-related governance activities, while entities with comprehensive programs also report coordinated business strategies, targets, and performance metrics.
These observations show an industry in transition. There is a rapid increase in awareness about the relevance of climate risk and resilience. However, practices vary widely, and institutional investors will need to engage with their investments to understand management strategies and performance goals.
It is important to note critical limitations in available information. The new Resilience Module data provide clear, comparable indicators for the existence and breadth of climate-risk and resilience activities. However, it is not yet possible to robustly evaluate the quality of risk management activities, such as the assessment of relevant risks and direct connections to asset-level mitigation measures. This will be a focus of indicator development for 2020.
A more comprehensive analysis of results will be provided later in 2019.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
2019 is the third year GRESB has evaluated the ESG transparency levels of listed companies and REITs through GRESB Public Disclosure. In this year’s analysis – available to all GRESB Investor Members subscribed to listed real estate data – the scope of the universe was extended to also cover listed property companies and REITs active outside of developed markets.
GRESB Public Disclosure consists of 22 indicators that collectively contribute to a maximum of 70 points. Constituents are then assigned a GRESB Public Disclosure Level from A to E based upon the points they received. The complete 2019 guidance and scoring methodology is available here.
Media and Research Partner
In 2019, constituents received an average of 35 points out of 70. This is higher than in 2018, when the average number of points received was 33 out of 70. The points increased despite a slightly more stringent scoring methodology and the increased scope of the universe.
The average score conceals the strong disparity in the distribution of GRESB Public Disclosure Levels. REITs and listed property companies either disclose a significant amount on ESG, or fairly little, which is reflected in a high allocation of E and A scores at both ends of the scoring spectrum (25.9% and 25.2% respectively).
Similarly to last year, GRESB Real Estate Participants vastly outperformed listed property companies and REITs that did not participate in the 2019 Assessment. 61.5% of GRESB Participants disclosed at the highest A-level, in this year’s analysis, compared to 51.7% last year.
Asia
- J-REITs scores only second to France in ESG transparency, receiving an average of 52.2 points out of 70. This is especially remarkable as 59 Japanese REITs were assessed, representing the highest sample, second to the United States.
- Asia lags other regions when it comes to renewable energy consumption disclosures.
Europe
- Regionally, Europe scores the highest in ESG transparency. European REITs and listed property companies received an average of 43.4 points out of 70.
- The 13 French REITs and listed property companies that were assessed scored the highest globally, receiving an average of 61.5. This high score reflects Article 173 of the law on energy transition and green growth, introduced after COP21 in 2015, requiring listed companies to report their ESG performance.
- The 3 Irish REITs and listed property companies showed the highest increases in transparency.
- 64.3% of European entities disclose using the EPRA Sustainability Best Practice Recommendations (sBPRs).
Americas
- North America and South America are the weakest regions when it comes to ESG disclosure performance, scoring an average of 26.3 & 24.3 points (out of 70) respectively.
- 6 US REITs and listed property companies disclose ESG information using the SASB-standard.
Oceania
- Australia shows a high disparity in the level of ESG disclosures. 13 Australian REITs and listed property companies disclose at the highest level, A, while another 12 disclose at the lowest level E.
- Oceania takes the lead in terms of disclosing using the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards.
AMERICAS
REGIONAL RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS
Americas Industry Partners
Americas Partners
ASIA
REGIONAL RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS
Asia Industry Partners
Asia Partners
EUROPE
REGIONAL RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS
Europe Industry Partners
Europe Partners
OCEANIA
REGIONAL RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS
Oceania Industry Partners
Oceania Partners
2019 REAL ESTATE SECTOR LEADERS
GRESB Sector Leader Awards recognize the best performers annually from across the GRESB Assessments. Achieving sector leader status is recognition of best practice ESG performance. We congratulate the 2019 GRESB Real Estate Sector Leaders.
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Residential - Private | Access Development Partnership, LGIM Real Assets |
| Healthcare - Private | Achmea Dutch Health Care Property Fund, Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance |
| Office - Private | Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial, Lendlease |
| Retail - Private | Australian Prime Property Fund Retail, Lendlease |
| Residential - Listed | AvalonBay Communities, Inc. |
| Storage/Parking | Big Yellow Plc |
| Hotels - Private | Bouwinvest Dutch Institutional Hotel Fund N.V., Bouwinvest REIM |
| Diversified - Listed | CapitaLand Limited, CapitaLand Group |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Listed | Castellum AB |
| Office - Listed | Dexus Office Trust, Dexus Property Group |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Private | Dexus Wholesale Property Fund, Dexus Property Group |
| Industrial - Listed | Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust, Frasers Logistics & Industrial Asset Management Pte. Ltd. |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Private | Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd - Investment Properties, Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd |
| Diversified - Private | Hines Master Fund Management Company S.a.r.l., Hines Real Estate Master FCP-FIS |
| Hotels - Listed | Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Private | J.P. Morgan U.S. Value Add, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Listed | JBG SMITH |
| Other - Private | Regent Street, The Crown Estate |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Listed | Stockland |
| Other - Listed | Swire Properties Limited |
| Industrial - Private | UBS German Logistics Fund, UBS Asset Management |
| Retail - Listed | Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield |
| Developer - Residential | Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd - Development Assets, Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd |
| Developer - Office | Skanska Commercial Development Nordic, Skanska Commercial Development Nordic |
| Developer - Diversified | Keppel Land Limited, Keppel Land Limited |
| Developer - Industrial | Goodman Group (GMG), Goodman Group |
Entity is a Global Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership and sector)
Entity is an Overall Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of region and sector)
Entity is a Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership, region and sector)
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Residential - Listed | AvalonBay Communities, Inc. |
| Office - Private | CommonWealth Partners |
| Residential - Private | GS Chelsea Co-Investment, LP, Greystar Real Estate Partners |
| Industrial - Private | Institutional Logistics Partners managed by BentallGreenOak |
| Retail - Private | Ivanhoe Cambridge - managed portfolio |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Private | J.P. Morgan U.S. Value Add, J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Office - Listed | Kilroy Realty Corporation |
| Diversified - Private | BentallGreenOak’s Diversified US Property Fund |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Private | Oxford Properties Group (OMERS) |
| Industrial - Listed | Prologis |
| Retail - Listed | The Macerich Company |
Entity is a Global Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership and sector)
Entity is an Overall Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of region and sector)
Entity is a Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership, region and sector)
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Diversified - Office/Retail, Listed | Activia Properties Inc., TLC REIT Management Inc. |
| Diversified - Listed | CapitaLand Limited, CapitaLand Group |
| Retail - Listed | CapitaLand Mall Trust, CapitaLand Mall Trust Management Limited |
| Office - Listed | City Developments Limited |
| Industrial - Private | Goodman Japan Core Partnership (GJCP), Goodman Group |
| Office - Private | IGIS Private Real Estate Investment Trust No. 35, IGIS Asset Management |
| Retail - Private | Lendlease Asian Retail Investment Fund 1, Lendlease |
| Residential - Listed | Nippon Accommodations Fund, Mitsui Fudosan Accommodations Fund Management Co., Ltd. |
| Industrial - Listed | Nippon Prologis REIT, Inc., Prologis |
| Diversified - Private | Nomura Real Estate Private REIT, Inc., Nomura Real Estate Asset Management Co., Ltd. |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Listed | Sekisui House Reit, Inc., Sekisui House Asset Management, Ltd. |
| Developer - Residential | White Peak Real Estate Investment, White Peak Group |
Entity is a Global Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership and sector)
Entity is an Overall Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of region and sector)
Entity is a Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership, region and sector)
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Residential - Private | Access Development Partnership, LGIM Real Assets |
| Healthcare - Private | Achmea Dutch Health Care Property Fund, Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance |
| Diversified - Office/Residential - Private | BlackRock Europe Property Fund IV, BlackRock |
| Hotels - Private | Bouwinvest Dutch Institutional Hotel Fund N.V., Bouwinvest REIM |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial | Castellum AB |
| Office - Private | CBRE Dutch Office Fund, CBRE Global Investors |
| Retail - Private | CBRE Retail Property Fund Iberica L.P., CBRE Global Investors |
| Office - Listed | Cegereal |
| Diversified - Private | Hines Master Fund Management Company S.a.r.l., Hines Real Estate Master FCP-FIS |
| Diversified - Listed | Icade |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Listed | Land Securities Group PLC |
| Other - Private | Regent Street, The Crown Estate |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Private | Sponda Plc |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Private | Storebrand Eiendomsfond Norge KS, Storebrand Asset Management AS |
| Residential - Listed | The UNITE Group Plc |
| Industrial - Private | UBS German Logistics Fund, UBS Asset Management |
| Retail - Listed | Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield |
Entity is a Global Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership and sector)
Entity is an Overall Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of region and sector)
Entity is a Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership, region and sector)
| Property Type | Name |
|---|---|
| Office - Private | Australian Prime Property Fund Commercial, Lendlease |
| Industrial - Private | Australian Prime Property Fund Industrial, Lendlease |
| Retail - Private | Australian Prime Property Fund Retail, Lendlease |
| Diversified - Office/Retail - Private | Dexus Wholesale Property Fund, Dexus Property Group |
| Industrial | Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust, Frasers Logistics & Industrial Asset Management Pte. Ltd. |
| Diversified - Office/Industrial - Private | Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd - Investment Properties, Frasers Property Australia Pty Ltd |
Entity is a Global Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership and sector)
Entity is an Overall Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of region and sector)
Entity is a Regional Sector Leader (Achieved highest score for the combination of nature of ownership, region and sector)