Development Asset Benchmark Report

Introduction

Participation & GRESB Score

The GRESB Score is an absolute measure resulting from the sum of all indicators in the Assessment and reflects the overall sustainability performance relative to all participating entities.

GRESB Rating

The GRESB Rating is determined based on the entity’s GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to all participating entities in the GRESB Development Asset Assessment. For example, entities in the top quintile receive a GRESB 5-star rating, while those in the bottom quintile get a GRESB 1-star rating.

Peer Comparison

GRESB assigns each participant to a peer group to contextualize their assessment results. Peer groups do not influence the GRESB Score, Star Rating, or points, but help to put the Benchmark Report insights into perspective. 



Development Asset peer groups are based on the entity’s sector, location, and development phase. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group once there are at least six participants with similar characteristics (the participant and five other peers).

See here for more information about GRESB’s predefined peer group allocation process.

Rankings

In addition to the peer comparison, GRESB provides a broad range of additional rankings by comparing participants’ scores against various benchmarks.

This approach aligns with the comparative nature of the Benchmark Report and helps contextualize scores by comparing them against participants with similar geographical, sectoral, and development phase criteria.

Sustainability Breakdown

Each indicator is allocated to one of the three dimensions (E- Environmental; S- Social; G- Governance):

• Environmental indicators assess the actions and efficiency measures an entity implements to monitor and decrease its environmental footprint.

• Social indicators assess an entity’s stakeholder relationships and the societal impact of its activities.

• Governance indicators assess an entity’s management of sustainability policies and procedures.

GRESB Model

The GRESB Model is an interactive chart* that displays the GRESB Scores of all entities within the GRESB Universe for the respective assessment type. The scores of participating entities are displayed horizontally along the X axis. The four vertical lines represent the star rating cutoffs, indicating where each entity falls within the relative quintiles.

Hovering over the stars above the graph reveals the score ranges corresponding to each star rating. Entity names remain confidential, unless the participant opted to disclose their name and score to other participants. By opting to disclose its score, that entity gains access to the names and scores of other participants who also chose to share this information.

The sum of all indicator scores (on the right-hand side) totals 100 points.

*Note that the interactive chart feature is available exclusively when accessing the Benchmark Report through the Portal. This functionality is not available in the PDF version of the report.

GRESB Average, Benchmark Average, & Peer Average

The GRESB Average is the average score of all GRESB Universe entities within the same Benchmark (i.e., Development Asset Benchmark).

The Peer Average is the average score of all entities within one’s peer group, which are shown in the Entity and Peer Characteristics section.

Trend

The trend graph shows the entity’s score progression across each year of participation. It also includes historical performance metrics such as the GRESB Range (i.e., lowest and highest scores achieved) and average scores for the GRESB Universe and peer group.

The graph will highlight the entity’s Grace Period year (if any) to indicate its participation status, but will not reveal the entity’s performance that year. If the entity opted into the Grace Period in the previous reporting year, this section does not include a score or rating change between the current and previous year.

Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities

The Aspects, Strengths, and Opportunities rose graph is an interactive tool that shows how the entity’s performance in each aspect (e.g., Reporting, Risk Management) compares to that of its benchmark group for the current reporting year.

Along with the table below, the graph provides a high-level overview of which areas the entity performs well in and which it could improve upon. This can help readers of the Benchmark Report direct their attention before delving further into the entity’s underlying results.

The interactive Peer Group Distribution graph on the right side of the table reveals the entity’s score per Aspect compared to the GRESB Universe and Peer Group Averages. The grey bars represent the distribution of entities within the asset’s peer group. The peer group characteristics are displayed above the table’s header.

Entity & Peer Group Characteristics

This section provides an overview of the entity and its peer group. See the Peer Group Allocation Methodology for more information on peer group creation.

Validation

GRESB validation verifies the existence, completeness, accuracy, and logic of data submitted to the GRESB Assessments. GRESB conducts both automatic and manual validation.

The Evidence: Manual Validation table summarizes the validation decisions of all manually validated indicators.

For manually validated indicators that require multiple validation decisions depending on the entity’s selections (e.g., PO1, RP1), the table reveals the outcome of each possible selection.

Lastly, the table provides a brief explanation for any indicators that received less than a fully accepted decision (for evidence and ‘Other’ answers).

Materiality

The Materiality table provides an overview of the ESG issues deemed material to the reporting entity, determined by the asset’s Reporting Characteristics (RC2, RC3, RC4, RC6).

The table allows for comparison between the materiality results of the reporting entity and those of its peer group. For more information on the materiality levels and how they are considered in scoring, please refer to the Materiality Page.

Score Summary

The Score Summary table details the number of points the entity earned per indicator. The maximum points and their weight within the Development component are listed alongside each Aspect title. This section reveals the entity’s position relative to its peers on an indicator-by-indicator basis.

Development Asset Impact

This section offers an overview of the asset’s Embodied Carbon, Health & Safety, and DEI performance during the reporting year.

Specifically, the charts show:

• Embodied Carbon: Total and intensity based (by GAV) emissions compared to peers (kgCO2e);

• Health & Safety: Absolute injury metrics of employees, contractors, and communities, and performance targets for each;

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Gender ratio of governance bodies, employees, and contractors.

Note that intensity calculations will only include assets that reported complete data coverage. Otherwise, the intensity graphics will note the incompletion.

Indicator Breakdown

Every indicator can be answered with ‘Yes, ‘No’ and ‘Not applicable’ in some cases. From a scoring perspective, ‘Not applicable’ is considered the same way as ‘No’ and will yield 0 points. The header displays the points achieved per indicator. The percentage bars located next to the indicator’s answers reflect the benchmark’s selection. In this example, 75% of the Development Component participants selected ‘Yes,’ and 25% selected ‘No.’