1

2024
GRESB Real Estate Standard
List of Changes
Following the GRESB Standard Development Process formalized in early 2022, the GRESB Foundation has
reviewed and approved changes throughout 2023 aiming to develop, maintain and improve the GRESB
Standard. The complete list of changes related to the 2024 Standard is presented in this document. There are
four types of changes:

1. General 2024 Standard Changes

2. Tactical 2024 Standard Changes
3. 2025 Standard Changes
4. Other Changes

For each change, information on background and purpose along with a description on scoring and reporting
impact for participants are provided.

1. General 2024 Standard Changes

Climate resilience and opportunities (RM5)
Background and Purpose: The previous Standard only covered climate-related risks and did not address
climate-relate opportunities (CROs). CROs are a critical aspect of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial
Disclosures (TCFD) framework. Reflecting both risks and opportunities ultimately allows entities considering
future climate scenarios to understand the full potential outcomes of their activities, and to align more closely
with the TCFD. The GRESB Foundation recommended the Standard better incorporates CROs to increase
alignment with TCFD.

During 2023 the inaugural International Sustainability ISSB Standards – IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 – were
published. The IFRS S1 and S2 align with and supersede TCFD. By incorporating CROs this year the
Standards also align closer to IFRS. IFRS will be reviewed in future years in terms of even closer alignment,
rather than TCFD.

Additionally, it was identified that the list of available transition and physical climate scenarios required an
update to include the new ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’ (SSP).

Description of Change: Scope of indicator RM5 Climate resilience is now expanded to cover climate-related
opportunities along with textual clarification. The list of physical and transition scenario options is updated to
include new SSP scenarios.

Scoring Impact: Indicator RM5 is now worth 0.5 point, through a reallocation of scoring weight from
existing Risk Management indicators (see Scoring Weight Reallocation Overview below).

Reporting Impact: Participants are required to incorporate resilience into their climate strategy and provide
a description on how the entity does so in light of any climate-related risks and opportunities. Participants
are now able to select the new SSP-RCP pathways if they use them in their Physical and/or Transition Risk
scenario analysis. This indicator will not be prefilled in 2024.

RM5 Climate resilience

Does the entity’s climate strategy incorporate resilience?

o 1 Yes

Describe how the entity incorporates resilience into its climate strategy considering risks and
opportunities: ____________
 2
Does the process of evaluating the resilience of the entity’s strategy involve the use of scenario analysis?
o Yes
Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)
Transition scenarios
CRREM 2C
CRREM 1.5C
IEA SDS
IEA B2DS
IEA NZE2050
IPR FPS
NGFS Current Policies
NGFS Nationally determined contributions
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR
SBTi
SSP1-1.9
SSP1-2.6
SSP4-3.4
SSP5-3.4OS
SSP2-4.5
SSP4-6.0
SSP3-7.0
SSP5-8.5
TPI
Other: ____________
Physical scenarios
RCP2.6
RCP4.5
RCP6.0
RCP8.5
SSP1-1.9
SSP4-3.4
SSP5-3.4OS
SSP3-7.0
Other: ____________
o No
o No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
Not Scored 0.5 points, G

Energy efficiency scoring

Background and Purpose: As part of the Foundation’s continuous work on Net Zero set as number one
priority for development in the GRESB Standard, scoring energy efficiency stands out as a key development
opportunity for the 2024 Standard. This change is also in line with the strategic direction of travel for the
Standard which is to transition towards better recognizing and scoring operational performance of real estate
assets.

Considering the complexity of the topic and variety of possible approaches to doing so, the Foundation
supports the implementation of a phased approach in the Standard, which will be subject to continuous
refinement over time and heavily informed by members’ feedback.

Description of Change: Introduction of energy efficiency scoring as a supplemental insight in the Standard.
While this change will have no direct influence on the GRESB Score in 2024, the methodology will be subject
to continuous refinements over time, and is expected to be ultimately fully integrated into the GRESB scoring
model. Technical and methodological details will be communicated later in the year.
 3
Scoring Impact: Although this section is now subject to scoring, it will not directly impact the overall GRESB
Score in 2024.

Reporting Impact: No reporting impact as this section solely relies on existing data points reported by
GRESB participants.

Separating operational vs non-operational Energy Consumption

Background and Purpose: Previously, the Standard did not clearly differentiate between Energy consumed
for operational purposes and other types of consumption in indicator EN1 Energy consumption. The GRESB
Foundation identified a clearer differentiation between the two as a necessary step to properly calculate
energy intensity values, and ultimately score energy performance in the Standard.

Description of Change: Introduction of a new asset-level) data input field (via the GRESB Portal) aiming to
collect other types of Energy consumption (deemed non-operational) separately from Energy consumed for
operational purposes. While the scope of this field might be subject to further refinements in the future based
members’ feedback, its initial scope predominantly focuses on EV charging stations as it represents the most
common and material type of Energy consumption considered non-operational for a standing asset.

Reporting guidance of indicator EN1 is now adapted to ensure that Energy consumed for operational
purposes is properly isolated from other types of consumption.

Scoring Impact: No scoring impact, energy data reported by participants in this field will not be included in
the measurement of operational energy profiles of assets, used for scoring Energy LFL Change metrics.
Reporting Impact: If applicable, participants are required to report (via the Asset Portal) EV charging stations’
consumption separately from operational energy consumption in indicator EN1.

Reporting Impact: If applicable, participants are required to report (via the Asset Portal) EV charging
stations’ consumption separately from operational energy consumption in indicator EN1.

Timing of building certification and validity

Background and Purpose: The validity of a new certification scheme for the reporting year was previously
based on the certification issue date. As the certification issue date may differ from the reporting year subject
to certification, it can result in a mismatch between the validity period of a certification and the reporting year
for which GRESB participants report this certificate.

Description of Change: The GRESB guidance for indicators BC1.1, BC1.2 and DBC1.2 is amended to refer
to the actual performance or assessment period (reporting period covered by the certification process) as the
period determining the validity of a reported scheme.

Scoring Impact: No scoring impact.

Reporting Impact: Participants are now able to report in indicators BC1.1 and BC1.2 and DBC1.2 building
certifications awarded by the certifier after the end of the reporting year if:

• It relates to a performance period prior or equal to the GRESB reporting year

• The participant’s submission for certification occurred before the end of the GRESB reporting year
• The actual certificate was received by the participant before the end of the GRESB official submission
deadline (July 1st)
 4
Example for an entity reporting on period 01.01-31.12:

Building certifications age and expiration year

Background and Purpose: Building certifications have been identified by the GRESB Foundation as a high
importance topic to be progressively better assessed and scored in the Standard. As a first step towards
more developments in the future, the Foundation focuses on better considering the evolving relevance of
reported building certifications over time, and thereby imposing an expiration year in the 2024 Standard.

Description of Change: The GRESB Standard now considers the evolving relevance of reported schemes
over time and imposes an expiration year for determining the validity of these schemes in indicators BC1.1
Building certifications at the time of design/construction and BC1.2 Operational building certifications. The
2024 Standard does so on the three main types of Building certifications currently recognized: Design/
Construction (BC1.1), Operational (BC1.2) and Interior (BC1.1) certifications.

Scoring Impact: Metrics previously subject to scoring in indicators BC1.1 and BC1.2 are now multiplied by
a “time factor”, reflective of the evolving relevance of the reported scheme over time, thereby considering the
building certification’s age in the scores for those indicators. This time factor is defined for each type of building
certification individually:

Certification age Time factor Time factor Time factor

(year) Design/Construction Operational Interior
0 100% 100% 100%
1 100% 100% 100%
2 100% 100% 100%
3 100% 100% 67%
4 90% 50% 33%
5 80% 0% 0%
6 74% 0% 0%
7 67% 0% 0%
8 61% 0% 0%
9 54% 0% 0%
10 48% 0% 0%
11 40% 0% 0%
12 32% 0% 0%
13 24% 0% 0%
14 16% 0% 0%
15 8% 0% 0%
… 8% 0% 0%
 5
The table above results from an approach developed by the GRESB Foundation. More information on parameters
underpinning the methodology will be made fully available on the GRESB website.

Reporting Impact: For all building certifications reported to the GRESB Standard, participants are now
required to report their corresponding Building Certifications Year in indicators BC1.1 and BC1.2 (through the
GRESB Asset Portal), which will be subsequently used in the GRESB scoring model.

2. Tactical 2024 Standard Changes

In addition to general changes described above, a tactical review process for the Standard was initiated in
2023 with as primary purposes to:

• Clear content duplication in indicators

• Reduce reporting burden for participants
• Continuously raise the bar for reporting entities and promote scoring differentiation of participants
• Identify alignment opportunities with other standards and frameworks

This section presents the result of this review process conducted by the GRESB Foundation. While the focus
has been predominantly the Management Component for the 2024 Standard, the intention to expand its
scope to other Components in future years.

Finally, note that since this review is heavily informed by direct user feedback during the reporting year,
comments are welcome and can be shared anytime with GRESB via our online helpdesk.

ESG Objectives (LE2)

Background and Purpose: The Standard previously allowed participants to report General sustainability as
well as Environment, Social and Governance-specific objectives in indicator LE2 ESG objectives. Both options
were considered significantly overlapping with each other.

Indicator LE2 previously inquired about the level of integration of the ESG objectives into the overall business
strategy. This section was often deemed too subjective or heavily subject to personal interpretation by
participants.

Description of Change: The “General sustainability” option is removed from the list of existing ESG
objectives in indicator LE2. The section on integration into the overall business strategy is also removed.
Scoring Impact: The scoring weight from removed options is reallocated to the remaining list of ESG
objectives. Overall scoring weight of indicator LE2 remains unchanged.

Scoring Impact: The scoring weight from removed options is reallocated to the remaining list of ESG
objectives. Overall scoring weight of indicator LE2 remains unchanged.

Reporting Impact: Participants are no longer required to report on, nor rewarded for setting General
sustainability objectives. Participants will no longer have to report on the level of integration of their ESG
objectives into the overall business strategy.

LE2 ESG objectives

Does the entity have ESG objectives?
Yes
The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)
General objectives
1
⁄3 General sustainability
4
1
⁄
⁄5 1 3
Environmental
⁄3 Social
2/4

1
⁄3 Governance
Issue-specific objectives
1
⁄5 ⁄2
1
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
1
⁄2 Health and well-being
1
⁄4 The objectives are
2
⁄2 Fully integrated into the overall business strategy
1
⁄2 Partially integrated into the overall business strategy
0
⁄2 Not integrated into the overall business strategy
 6
The objectives are
2
⁄2 Publicly available
Provide applicable hyperlink
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
2/4

0
⁄2 Not publicly available
Communicate the objectives and explain how they are integrated into the overall
business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No

1 point, G

ESG, climate-related and/or DEI senior decision maker (LE5)

Background and Purpose: Indicator LE5 previously captured the existence of a senior decision-maker
for ESG within the organization, and offered Fund/Portfolio manager as an option. Considering that a Fund/
Portfolio manager is often the most common role within reporting organization responsible for ESG, this
option was already captured by indicator LE3, resulting in double counting between the two indicators.

Description of Change: The “Fund/Portfolio manager” option is removed from the list of senior roles in
indicator LE5.

Scoring Impact: The Standard no longer rewards participants for reporting Fund/portfolio managers as the
entity’s senior decision-maker in indicator LE5, but continues to do so in indicator LE3. Overall scoring weight
of indicator LE5 remains unchanged.

Reporting Impact: Participants are no longer able to report Fund/Portfolio Manager as a senior decision-
maker for their ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI decision make in indicator LE5.

LE5 ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI senior decision-maker

Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG, climate-related, and/or DEI issues?
Yes
ESG
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
3
⁄5 The individual’s most senior role is as part of
1 Board of Directors
1 C-suite level staff/Senior management
1 Investment Committee
1 Fund/portfolio managers
1 Other: ____________
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on climate-related issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
1
⁄5 The individual’s most senior role is as part of
1 Board of Directors
1 C-suite level staff/Senior management
1 Investment Committee
1 Fund/portfolio managers
1 Other: ____________
DEI
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on DEI
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
1
⁄5 The individual’s most senior role is as part of
1 Board of Directors
1 C-suite level staff/Senior management
1 Fund/portfolio managers
1 Investment Committee
 7
1 Other: ____________
Describe the process of informing the most senior decision-maker on the ESG, climate-
related, and DEI performance of the entity (maximum 250 words)
No
1 point, G

Personnel ESG performance targets (LE6)

Background and Purpose: The Standard previously inquired about ESG performance targets for personnel
having both financial and non-financial consequences in indicator LE6 Personnel ESG performance targets.
The concept of a non-financial consequence is deemed to lack strictness, can be subject to personal
interpretation and often confuses participants for supporting those in their uploaded evidence.

Description of Change: The Standard no longer rewards participants for including ESG factors with
non-financial consequences, such as written or verbal recognition, in the annual performance targets of
personnel. As such, the “Non-financial consequences” section is removed from indicator LE6.

Scoring Impact: The Standard no longer rewards participants for including ESG factors with non-financial
consequences, such as written or verbal recognition, in the annual performance targets of personnel. Overall
scoring weight of indicator LE6 remains unchanged.

Reporting Impact: Participants are no longer required to report on “Non-financial consequences” in

indicator LE6.

LE6 Personnel ESG performance targets

Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?
Yes
Does performance on these targets have predetermined consequences?
Yes
2
⁄3 Financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
3
⁄8 Board of Directors
3
⁄8 C-suite level staff/Senior management
3
⁄8 Investment Committee
3
⁄8 Fund/portfolio managers
2
⁄8 Asset managers
2
⁄8 ESG portfolio managers
2
⁄8 Investment analysts
2
⁄8 Dedicated staff on ESG issues
2
⁄8 External managers or service providers
2
⁄8 Investor relations
2
⁄8 Other: ____________
1
⁄3 Non-financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
3
⁄8 Board of Directors
3
⁄8 C-suite level staff/Senior management
3
⁄8 Investment Committee
3
⁄8 Fund/portfolio managers
2
⁄8 Asset managers
2
⁄8 ESG portfolio managers
2
⁄8 Investment analysts
2
⁄8 Dedicated staff on ESG issues
2
⁄8 External managers or service providers
2
⁄8 Investor relations
2
⁄8 Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found ____
No
No
2 points, G
 8
ESG Reporting (RP1)
Background and Purpose: The GRESB Standard rewards disclosure through several channels for reporting
organizations and does so at entity, manager and group level. Reporting behaviour analysis covering
uploaded supporting evidence by participants indicates a significant overlap between proposed options in
indicator RP1 ESG reporting, in particular “Section in entity reporting to investors”, resulting in double counting
and unnecessary reporting burden for participants.

Description of Change: The “Section in entity reporting to investors” option is removed from indicator RP1.

Scoring Impact: The Standard no longer rewards participants for disclosure through a “Section in entity
reporting to investors”. Overall scoring weight of indicator RP1 remains unchanged.

Reporting Impact: Participants are no longer required to report on this option nor provide a related
supporting evidence.

RP1 ESG reporting

Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Please select all applicable (multiple answers possible)
2
⁄6 Section in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
2
⁄2 Entity
1
⁄6 1
⁄2 Investment manager
1
⁄2 Group

1
⁄6 Aligned with
3/5

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes
1
⁄3 Externally checked
3
⁄3 Externally verified using
2
⁄6
3⁄3 Externally assured using
No

Provide applicable evidence

× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found ____

2
⁄6 Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
2
⁄2 Entity
1
⁄6 1
⁄2 Investment manager
1
⁄2 Group

1
⁄6 Aligned with
4/5

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes
1
⁄3 Externally checked
3
⁄3 Externally verified
2
⁄6 using
3
⁄3 Externally assured
using
No
 9
Provide applicable evidence
× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found ____

3
⁄6 Integrated Report
*Integrated Report must be aligned with IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
2
⁄2 Entity
1
⁄6 1
⁄2 Investment manager
1
⁄2 Group

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes
5/5

1
⁄3 Externally checked
2
⁄6 3
⁄3 Externally verified using
3
⁄3 Externally assured using

No

Provide applicable evidence

× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found ____
2
⁄3Dedicated section on corporate website
Select the applicable reporting level
2
⁄2 Entity
1
⁄
3
1
⁄2 Investment manager
⁄2 Group
1/5

× URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found _______

4
⁄6 Section in entity reporting to investors

1
⁄6 Aligned with
2/5

Disclosure us third-party reviewed:

1
⁄6 Yes
No
Provide applicable evidence
× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found _____________
2
⁄6
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
2
⁄2 Entity

1
⁄6 1
⁄2 Investment manager
1
⁄2 Group
1
⁄6 Aligned with
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
2/5

Yes
1
⁄3 Externally checked
2
⁄6 3
⁄3 Externally verified using
3
⁄3 Externally assured using
 10
No
provide applicable evidence
× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

No

3.5 points, G

ESG incident monitoring (RP2.1)

Background and Purpose: Recurring organizational misconducts can increase the risk profile of entities
as they can translate into reputational, compliance, and financial risks. Having a defined process to monitor
potential misconduct and communicate such risks to key stakeholders is necessary to provide investors with
transparency about regulatory risks and liabilities.

Description of Change: A scoring weight is introduced to indicator RP2.1 ESG incident monitoring to
incentivize entities to have in place a process to monitor potential misconducts and to communicate risks to
key stakeholders. In addition, the reference to ESG as a type of misconduct is removed on the basis that any
responsible business misconduct can be deemed ESG-related, further aligning with other global reporting
standards.

Scoring Impact: A scoring weight of 0.25 points is introduced to indicator RP2.1, broken down according to
the relevance of stakeholder types.

Reporting impact: Participants are now rewarded in indicator RP2.1 for having a process to monitor
controversies, misconducts, etc. and communicate to key stakeholders.

RP2.1 ESG incident monitoring

Does the entity have a process to monitor ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents,
accidents, or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The process includes external communication of controversies, misconduct, penalties,
incidents or accidents to:
1
⁄4 Clients/Customers
1
⁄8 Community/Public
1
⁄8 Contractors
1
⁄4 Employees
1
⁄4 Investors/Shareholders
1
⁄8 Regulators/Government
1
⁄8 Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc)
1
⁄8 Suppliers
1
⁄8 Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the process (maximum 250 words): ____________
No
*The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of
2023 Sector Leaders.

Not scored 0.25 points, G

 11
Environmental Management System (RM1)
Background and Purpose: Environmental Management Systems (EMS) that are certified or aligned with
a standard provide assurance that environmental impacts are measured and acted upon using a recognized
and proven methodology. Previous scoring weight allocation of indicator RM1 Environmental Management
System did not properly reward participants for making additional efforts by undergoing alignment or
certification process for their EMS.

Description of Change: The scoring allocation of indicator RM1 is revised to better recognize
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) that are aligned or certified with a standard.

Scoring Impact: Participants no longer benefit from having an EMS that is neither aligned nor certified
with a standard in indicator RM1. In addition, the scoring weight of indicator RM1 is reduced by 0.25 points
reflecting the reallocation of points between indicators RP2.1 and RM1 (see Scoring Weight Reallocation
Overview section).

Reporting Impact: No reporting impact.

RM1 Environmental Management System (EMS)

Does the entity have an Environmental Management System (EMS)?
3
⁄6 Yes
⁄6 ⁄6 The EMS is aligned with a standard
2 3

1 ISO 14001
1 EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
1 Other standard: ____________
⁄6 ⁄6 The EMS is externally certified by an independent third party using
3 6

1 ISO 14001
1 EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
1 Other standard: ____________
The EMS is not aligned with a standard nor certified externally
Provide applicable evidence
× UPLOAD or URL ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No

1.5 points 1.25 points, G

Net Zero Targets (T1.2)

Background and Purpose: In continuity to the introduction of indicator T1.2 Net Zero targets in the 2023
Standard, the GREB Foundation expresses the increasing importance to incentivize the industry to set Net
Zero targets as a critical element of a Net Zero strategy and as such, this indicator should have a dedicated
score in the 2024 GRESB Standard.

Description of change: Introduction of scoring weight of 1 point to indicator T1.2 from indicators T1.1
(reduced from 2 points to 1 point).

Scoring impact: Participants are now rewarded for demonstrating a Net Zero target in indicator T1.2. Full
score to this indicator is achieved irrespective of the characteristics underlying the Net Zero target.

Reporting impact: No reporting impact.

 12
T1.2 Net Zero Targets

Has the entity set GHG reduction targets aligned with Net Zero?
1 Yes

Explain the methodology used to establish the target and communicate the entity’s plans/intentions
to achieve it (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy generation and/or procurement, carbon offsets,
anticipated budgets associated with decarbonizing assets, acquisition/disposition activities, etc.)
(maximum 500 words)
_____________

No
Not applicable

Not scored 1 point, E

Property Sub-Type Reclassification

Background and Purpose: The Standard previously classified Property Sub-Type Medical Office in the
Office sector. Based on industry’s feedback and supported by data analysis, a very significant portion
of participants reporting Medical Office assets did not identify with GRESB’s previous definition nor
classification, and rather identify with the Healthcare sector.

Description of Change: “Medical Office” Property Sub-Type is now reclassified from Office to Healthcare
sector in Appendix 3a – Property Types Classification. The definition of Medical Office is now expanded to
also include buildings used to provide diagnosis and treatment for medical, dental, or psychiatric outpatient
care.

Scoring Impact: Limited scoring impact, only affecting the few instances where benchmarked and scored
metrics at Property Sub-Type level occur at a higher level (e.g. Property Type or Sector level) due to an
insufficient number of observations.

Reporting Impact: No reporting impact. Participants reporting Medical Office properties will find this
Property Sub-Type under the “Healthcare”.

Scoring Weights Reallocation Overview

Scoring weights (p)

Indicator 2023 GRESB Standard 2024 GRESB Standard

RP2.1 0 0.25
RM1 1.5 1.25
RM4 0.75 0.25
RM5 0 0.5
T1.1 2 1
T1.2 0 1
Total 4.25 4.25
 13
3. 2025 Standard Change
Similarly to previous sections, the following change was formally approved by the GRESB Foundation to
impact the Real Estate Standard. However, in an effort to provide participants with sufficient notice to collect
the necessary data points to report to the GRESB assessment, this change is published today but will only
impact the Standard as from 2025.

The full list of 2025 Standard Changes will be made available in October 2024.

Employee safety indicators (SE4)

Background and Purpose: The Standard currently does not require all proposed options in indicator SE4
Employee safety indicators to be selected in order for participants to be fully rewarded. This change aims to
raise the bar for participants on their monitoring activities on safety indicators.

Description of Change: The scoring weight allocation of indicator SE4 will be revised so that all four
indicators are required to obtain full points.

Scoring Impact: The scoring weight assigned to each selection option of indicator SE4 is reduced from 1⁄2
to ¼ of the total indicator’s score. Overall scoring weight of indicator SE4 remains unchanged.

Reporting Impact: No reporting impact.

SE4 Employee safety indicators

Has the entity monitored conditions for and / or tracked indicators of employee safety during the last three
years?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Work station and/or workplace checks
⁄2 ⁄4 Percentage of employee: ____________%
1 1

⁄2 ⁄4
1 1
Absentee rate:____________%
⁄2 ⁄4
1 1
Injury rate:____________%
⁄2 ⁄4
1 1
Lost day rate:____________%
⁄2 ⁄4
1 1
Other metrics:____________%
Rate of other metric(s):____________

Explain the employee occupational safety indicators calculation method

(maximum 250 words)
________________________

No

0.5 point, S
 14
4. Other Changes
In addition to the Standard Changes presented above, the following changes have been acknowledged by the
GRESB Foundation as not directly impacting the GRESB Standard. In 2024, these changes mainly relate to
reporting mechanism improvements, benchmarking methodologies as well as additional unscored GRESB
output.

Facilitate new reporting scenarios for large Residential portfolios

Background and Purpose: In 2023, the GRESB Foundation identified the priority need for the Standard
to better cater for Residential Real Estate in the future. As a first phase of a longer-term plan to achieve
this purpose, the change impacting the 2024 Standard aims to facilitate the effective reporting of certain
scenarios encountered by large Residential portfolios.

Description of Change: Expansion of data input field at the asset level (via the GRESB Asset Portal)
allowing multiple Energy Ratings to be reported per asset, along with the adaptation of aggregation model
(asset to portfolio) to cater for those new scenarios.

In addition, reporting guidance (GRESB Asset Spreadsheet) for Energy Ratings, Building Certifications and
Construction Year has been clarified.

Scoring Impact: No scoring impact.

Reporting Impact: Participants are now able to report multiple Energy Ratings per asset, and benefit from
additional reporting guidance on the aggregation of Energy Ratings, Building Certifications and Construction
Year.

Introduction of Country in benchmarking methodology

Background and Purpose: The granularity of the benchmarking logic occurred previously at Property
Sub-Type level, irrespective of the geography of the individual assets. The former approach potentially led to
disparate profiles to benchmark against. In an effort to increase benchmarking and scoring relevance in the
Standard, Country as a geography factor is incorporated into the benchmarking methodology of the 2024
Standard.

Description of change: Country as a geography factor is incorporated for the following performance
metrics currently benchmarked and scored. This includes:

• Data Coverage (tenant and landlord-controlled) for Energy, GHG, Water, and Waste
• Like-for-like Changes (tenant and landlord-controlled) for Energy, GHG, and Water
• Renewable Energy
• Recycled Water
• Building Certifications
• Energy Ratings

Scoring impact: GRESB participants will benefit from more granular performance benchmarking and
scoring, now assigned at Country level.

Reporting impact: Participants are now required to report %GAV per Property Sub-Type at the Country level,
through a new table reflecting the combination of previous indicators R1.1 The entity’s standing investments
portfolio during the reporting year and R1.2 Countries/states included in the entity’s standing investments
portfolio. Same approach applies to indicators DR1.1 Composition of the entity’s development projects
portfolio during the reporting year and DR1.2 Countries/states included in the entity’s development projects
portfolio covering assets under developments.
 15
Representativeness of intensity values
Background and Purpose: To calculate intensity values of reported assets in the GRESB output, the 2023
Standard previously imposed a full Data Coverage percentage (100%).

Description of Change: In an effort to increase the portfolio representativeness of intensity values provided
in the GRESB output, the threshold imposed on Data Coverage is revised to > 50% Data Coverage. As such, a
separate intensity value will be added to the GRESB output in addition to previously calculated intensities in
the Energy, GHG, Water and Waste sections.

Scoring Impact: No scoring impact.

Reporting Impact: No reporting impact.