2020 GRESB Real Estate & Infrastructure Results - Nordics Thursday, 26 November 2020

2. 2
PROGRAM
• Welcome & Introduction| Josien Piek, Head of EMEA, GRESB & Bengt Enge, Partner, Klinkby Enge
• GRESB Real Estate Results & developments in the Nordic region | Roxana Isaiu, Director Real Estate,
GRESB
• GRESB Infrastructure Results & developments in the Nordic region | Rick Walters, Director
Infrastructure, GRESB
• Panel Discussion: EU Taxonomy analysis of infrastructure and real estate assets
• Moderator: Rick Walters, Director Infrastructure, GRESB
• Anders Klinkby, Managing Partner, Klinkby Enge
• Closing remarks

3. 3
Investor-Led Growth

4. 4
Regional Participation
+22%

5. 5
50 participants from the Nordics

6. 6
Participation 1,229 +96 k USD 4.8 tn
Breakdown by region

7. 7
2020 RESULTS

8. 8
GRESB Model
Regional scores comparison
Asia
Oceania
MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE
Nordics

9. 9
GRESB Model
Country Scores Comparison

10. 10
Impact of Change
Contribution analysis

11. 11
Energy intensities
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Retail Office Hotel Industrial
Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Europe
KWh/m2
31 124 44 149 1938 49 140 91 600 3043 5 17 16 42 633 16 84 12 303 2488

12. 12
LFL reductions
-3,6
-4,6
-2,6
-6,6
-3,3
-7,3
-4,9
-3,9
-3,2
-4,4
Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Europe

13. 13
KEY ESG TRENDS

14. 14
Resilience & Regulation
121
238
412
Americas Europe Asia Oceania
% participants
13%
24%
34%
2018
2019
2020

15. 15
WHAT’S NEXT?

16. 16
Granularity
Reliability
Quality control
Error detection
Normalisation
Asset-level
benchmarking
Scoring of true
performance
Local and global
targets
Data
Availability
Performance
Insights
Benchmarking 2.0
Data
Quality
From data availability to scoring performance outcomes
Transitioning to Performance
• Granularity
• Reliability
• Quality control
• Error detection
• Normalisation
• Asset-level
benchmarking
• Scoring
performance
outcomes
• Local, regional and
global targets

17. 17
Stronger governance
Rooted into deeper industry involvement and collective effort for transparency
Independent standard setter
Mission driven
Investor led
By industry, for industry
Formalised by year-end
Independent benchmarking organisation
Future B-Corp
Mission driven
…..
GRESB Foundation
GRESB BV

18. 18
Industry collaboration
Collective problems require collective action
December 2020
• Kick off discussions on impact of COVID on building performance
• Industry working group Data Providers
• Industry working group Institutional Investors
Q1, 2021
• Draft roadmap for defining, measuring and benchmarking performance
• Industry working group for feedback and discussion of Assessment and benchmarking
methodology for Residential portfolios
• Engagement on integration of Climate Risk and Resilience into the GRESB Assessments

19. 19
SECTOR LEADERS

20. 3
Sector Leaders – Europe

21. 1
INFRASTRUCTURE

22. 2
Assessment Structure

23. 3
PARTICIPATION
5 Years of GRESB Infra

24. 4
Fund – Region Participation

25. 5
Asset – Sector Participation

26. 6
SCORES

27. 7
Regional Scores and GAV

28. 8
Fund Model (Component Scores)

29. 9
Fund Model - Europe

30. 10
Asset Model (Component Scores)

31. 11
Asset Model - Nordics

32. 12
Asset Model - Regional

33. 13
Asset Sectors

34. 14
PERFORMANCE

35. 15
Performance: Reporting & Targets

36. 16
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

37. 17
Regional Participation and Scores

38. 18
LOOKING AHEAD

39. 19
Proposed Changes for 2021
Fund • No major changes
Asset –Management
Component
• No major changes
• External ESG controversy data for scoring of ESG incident
occurrences
Asset –Performance
Component
• Improvements to the Performance Component indicator
tables to further simplify and clarify reporting requirements
• Take steps towards Performance scoring
Asset –Development
Component
• New Component to more specifically address assets
(projects) in development
Data Quality
• Automatic real-time outlier checks in the portal to reduce
the potential for errors and enhance data quality
Live scoring
• Draft scoring live in the portal to increase transparency,
reduce potential for errors and provide immediate feedback
to participants.

40. 20
SECTOR LEADERS

41. 21
Sector Leaders - Funds
Most Improved - Funds
• Sectorally diversified
• Sector specific
excluding
Renewables;
• Europe
• Renewable Power
Generation;
• Americas
Asia and Oceania Globally diversified
• Sectorally diversified;
• Europe;
• Other region
(Americas, Asia or
Oceania)
Globally diversified Sector specific

42. 22
Sector Leaders - Assets
MHL Supply
Networks
(Asia) Limited
Crook Hill &
Reaps Moss
Amey Belfast School
Partnership PFI Co
Limited
UDICITE
Data Infrastructure Diversified
Energy and Water
Resources
Environmental
Services Network Utilities
Other
Power Generation
x-Renewables
Renewable Power Renewable Power
Social
Infrastructure
Transport
Solar Power
Generation
Water and
Sewerage
Companies
Education Services Education Services
Health and Social
Care Services Airport Companies Port Companies Road Companies

43. 23
Most Improved - Assets
Urbs ludex
et
Causidicus
S.A.
Desert
Sunlight
Projco (St.
Andrews
Hospital) Limited
Network Utilities
Diversified and Other
(including Environmental
Services)
Data Infrastructure
Power Generation x-
Renewables
Renewable Power Social Infrastructure Transport Wind Power Generation
Health and Social Care
Services
Road Companies

44. 24
EU TAXONOMY

45. 25
Reg’s and Standards Converging?

46. 26
EU Taxonomy
• Aims to encourage investment flows to
companies engaged in or transitioning
to more sustainable activities
• Supports the EU to become carbon
neutral by 2050
• Climate (mitigation and adaptation)
covered initially but includes DNSH
• Applies to financial market participants
from 1/1/2022

47. 27
38 6 - - -
11
3 - - -
48
23
8 5 4
28
16
16 16
1
81
75
75
61
59
103
10
9
1
1
24
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
-
426
133
108
83
65
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Total Taxonomy aligned Metric assessed Data reported Taxonomy compliant
Data Infrastructure Environmental Services Network Utilities (Distribution) Power Generation x-Renewables
Renewable Power Transport Energy and Water Resources Social Infrastructure
Diversified Other
GRESB Assets - EU-T Assessment

48. 28
38 6 - - -
11
3 - - -
48
23
8 5 4
28
16
16 16
1
81
75
75
61
59
103
10
9
1
1
24
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
-
-
426
133
108
83
65
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Total Taxonomy aligned Metric assessed Data reported Taxonomy compliant
Data Infrastructure Environmental Services Network Utilities (Distribution) Power Generation x-Renewables
Renewable Power Transport Energy and Water Resources Social Infrastructure
Diversified Other
GRESB Assets - EU-T Assessment
Not aligned
293
Metric
not
assess
ed
25
Data not
reported
25
Threshold
not met
18
Taxonomy compliant
65

49. Practical experiences with EU
Taxonomy assessments
26 November 2020
29

50. Basic process for applying the Taxonomy
30
1.
Classify activities
across the asset and
align with taxonomy
2.
Do they meet the
substantial
contribution
criteria?
3.
Are the Do No
Significant Harm
criteria met?
4.
Are the
Minimum Social
Safeguards met?
5.
How much of the
asset/fund is
aligned?
6.
Prepare
Disclosures
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
EU Taxonomy for private assets

51. Basic process for applying the Taxonomy – phase 1
1.
Classify activities
across the asset and
align with taxonomy
Phase 1
1. Create a “taxonomy activity overview” for the asset
• For activities/assets that are not covered by the
taxonomy, consider developing a “non-taxonomy
green/sustainable” framework
Analysis framework for the asset is created
2. Create taxonomy assessment sheet for each
activity for each site
• Which environmental objective(s) should the
“substantial contribution” assessment be
made against? (1-6)
• If there are multiple instances of the same
activity at different sites, each should be
assessed separately if possible (e.g. each
building, or each datacenter)
EU Taxonomy for private assets

52. Basic process for applying the Taxonomy – phase 2
2. – 4.
Determine if the
criteria for
eligibility is met
2. – 4.
Determine if the
criteria for
eligibility is met
1. Adapt the technical screening criteria to fit specific
asset and determine relevant thresholds/benchmarks
2. Gather the data required according to specifications
determined in previous step
3. Determine for each activity/site whether the activity is
a) Taxonomy aligned (all criteria are deemed
eligible for the activity/site)
b) Potentially taxonomy aligned (Alignment is
expected – but can not be documented in full)
c) Not taxonomy aligned
4. For b and c, assess what is needed to achieve
alignment, and whether it can be achieved within
e.g. 5 years.
5. For c, consider if the activity/asset complies with
your own “non-taxonomy sustainable” criteria.
6. Determine if the activity is “low carbon”,
“transitional” or “enabling” (needed for fund
disclosure)
7. If more than one activity/site is assessed, use
revenue/turnover and capex to determine the
percentage of alignment for the asset.
Phase 2 The asset assessment is conducted for each asset
EU Taxonomy for private assets

53. Basic process for applying the Taxonomy – phase 3
Phase 3 The fund/portfolio assessment is conducted and disclosed
1. Multiply Gross Asset Value per asset with the percent
alignment calculated in the previous step
• Taxonomy aligned revenue/capex
• Potentially taxonomy aligned revenue/capex
• Not taxonomy aligned revenue/capex
2. If relevant, split above into “low carbon”, “transitional”
and “enabling”
5. – 6.
Calculate portfolio
alignment and
prepare disclosure
EU Taxonomy for private assets

54. 34
Main conclusions from work on EU Taxonomy assessments
Based on the screening criteria it is possible to conduct a meaningful assessment in most cases
Criteria are mostly clear
What is needed for evidence is not well defined
Draft Delegated Acts seem to improve general structure and clarity
Data is not readily available
Initially the problem sits with the investor
The task of producing quality data will move to the asset level – over time
Assets will typically be able to produce the data needed – if prioritized
The assets need detailed guidance on what (and why) to deliver. This is new to them
We expect alignment degrees to be low across most portfolios
The EU Taxonomy sets the bar high for a reason – creating a net zero carbon economy in 2050
Strong focus on best-in-class energy efficiency
Do No Significant Harm and Minimum Social Safeguard require structured documentation
Process of trial and error and gradual learning. Benefit to get started early
EU Taxonomy for private assets