Forward-looking ESG data

April 1, 2021/in Data /by Sonny Masero

To integrate climate risk and sustainability into financial decisions, we need to standardise metrics, improve data quality and ensure that it is forward-looking as well as measuring past performance. For climate risk, this is an essential part of the TCFD Recommendations for integrating climate risk as an investment risk.

Climate risk is divided into three categories:

Transition risk
Physical risk
Litigation risk

They all have forward-looking components. In ESG data terms, we can use historic data and data models to project future implications. We can do this more easily for the E in ESG because we know that we’re operating within planetary boundaries so we know there are limits. The Stockholm Resilience Centre (2015) monitors the nine planetary boundaries shown below.

Whilst this illustration doesn’t show us overshooting the climate change planetary boundary, that is because we haven’t yet. We are on track to do so with our present rate of greenhouse gas (GHG or carbon) emissions. That is why, in 2015, the UN Paris Agreement was signed by 195 states. This Agreement set us on a course to reduce emissions to Net Zero Carbon (NZC) by 2050, which keeps global warming well below 2°C, and ideally 1.5°C, to prevent catastrophic, non-linear climate change.

Over the last two years, many real estate companies and investors have committed to a Net Zero Carbon target and some have a pathway to get there. For most fund managers, they have not yet had time to project out a NZC pathway for their fund and real assets.

A science-based NZC pathway can show a clear route to reducing emissions each year. We need to be over halfway to NZC by 2030. However, local markets will move at different speeds depending on their starting point today; the local regulations; the cost of energy and carbon emissions; and, to some degree, the local awareness of a changed climate and how this forces climate adaptation. Climate adaptation will be required to protect against extreme weather events, which have become fiercer and/or more common over the past decade increasing insurance losses and premia.

These climate risks are the reason why ESG data needs to be forward-looking.

At EVORA Global, we have developed our SIERA software to be forward-looking on climate risk. We have worked on two new modules. The first is focused on NZC and transition risks and this is already available. The second builds on our partnership with Moody’s 427 physical climate risk assessment, which is used by our consultancy team. This will enable users to see both sets of climate risk in one place, associated with each asset and fund.

The screengrab below shows the NZC module, shows a real estate portfolio and the fund’s NZC pathway. This uses asset energy data from the last 9-12 months to calculate carbon emissions for the whole building. Based on asset type and location, it then automatically projects a science-based NZC pathway out to show the required emissions reduction. The tool can then be used to run different scenarios for emissions reduction based on what is know about each asset.

There are other features within the NZC module so do get in touch if you’d like to organise a demo

GRESB + SIERA = Success

January 4, 2021/in Data /by Matt Matthias

Sustainability data can be complex. It can show many interesting patterns and insightful trends about energy usage, but at the same time be hard to manage. The ability to use sustainability data to reduce energy usage by seeing the impact of actions is one of its most powerful features. Connecting those patterns and trends to actions leads to results.

GRESB provides a way of thinking about sustainability data which focuses effort on certain areas and types of energy consumption. SIERA is the sustainability software solution by EVORA for managing asset portfolio data to help achieve sustainability goals. SIERA provides a way of seeing those areas and types of energy consumption by organising consumption, meters, properties, and funds to make it easier to understand. That’s why EVORA sustainability consultants use it get the best out of the data, and easily see patterns which otherwise would be hidden.

But GRESB provides its own challenges. Submitting data to GRESB involves making sure the data is correct, accurate and above all reflects the performance of a property and ultimately a portfolio.

GRESB can be challenging to get right

For those who submit to GRESB, there’s a lot of data to prepare – a lot of ducks to get into rows if you will. One of the first hurdles is making sure that your asset data is correct, that floor areas add up correctly and that the consumption, waste or emissions make sense to GRESB. There’s wide range of categories and ownership to consider, and things like where emissions are generated and who consumes them.

In short, it can easily become somewhat of a mountain of information to organise. GRESB provide a website and a spreadsheet you can use to upload data. The website points out where things don’t add up correctly and you work through the errors until they’re all gone.

GRESB also provides the ability to use software to upload your data. This method is very similar to the website except errors are sent to the software instead of the GRESB webpage. SIERA uses this method to direct the wealth of asset data it contains about assets in the portfolios and funds managed by EVORA consultants.

This connection means SIERA can take advantage of its own intelligence to make it easier to prepare for GRESB.

SIERA makes things clearer

SIERA is a platform whose main aim is to make sustainability data more manageable and the intelligence within it easier to see. It shines at tasks like GRESB mainly because it already contains a lot of the data required for a GRESB submission. SIERA uses this data to show the patterns, monitor the impact of actions and to look for potential improvements.

SIERA has a wide range of different ways of showing the data, each taking a different slice of the data to show a pattern. Having so many different views on the data makes it much easier to understand the data which gets sent to GRESB.

Asset-level reporting becomes easy

This year GRESB changed how data is reported. Before it was fund-level, meaning the total consumption and usage of all assets in a fund was submitted. This year it became asset-level. This means the energy and performance of each individual asset is submitted. As you can imagine, this means much more detail is needed and a finer grain of accuracy than before.

Luckily for SIERA users this didn’t pose a problem. SIERA already recorded data at the meter level so this change didn’t cause a problem.

Qualitative survey answers add colour

GRESB doesn’t just focus on utility readings. It also asks a range of questions about the social initiatives, engagements and technical assessments done for each asset. This qualitative data helps to show how a building is being managed and what social programs are taking place to increase the sustainability of an asset.

SIERA captures this data using surveys. SIERA surveys capture exactly the qualitative data that GRESB asks about. Surveys can be sent out to building and property managers for each asset and contain a range of questions about the asset and its management.

SIERA automatically prepares the answers for the GRESB questions which focus on the building management. Where it can, SIERA also uses data it already has to save time for anyone submitting data to GRESB. For example, rather than ask every property manager if a building uses automatic meter readings, SIERA simply looks at the meters in the asset and checks itself.

No GRESB errors doesn’t always mean correct

Once the asset data has been checked for any updates, SIERA displays the whole GRESB submission in one page. This table makes errors or unexpected variances stand out so you can quickly correct any potential mistakes.

EVORA consultants use SIERA to prepare submissions for clients. On top of that, because they’re experts in their field, they use it to see where adjustments might be necessary.

GRESB show where data doesn’t add up using errors and outliers. This helps to make sure data like floor area coverage is correct, but it doesn’t highlight poorly organised data. EVORA consultants know to look for variances which may indicate problems like consumption data that has been incorrectly allocated to the wrong area of the building.

EVORA uses SIERA to achieve higher GRESB scores

Using these SIERA features make GRESB easier to get right, but they also make it easier to get higher scores. EVORA consultants use the fine-grain control of SIERA and the data visualisations and views to get the most out of the data, and correct issues before they get to GRESB.

Whilst other sustainability software can also prepare submissions for GRESB, SIERA ensures that the data is both in its best form, and used to get real results. Once the GRESB period is over EVORA consultants use the data to feedback to clients to help guide which actions will achieve an asset’s sustainability goals.

This combination of EVORA + SIERA explains how EVORA helped a number of our clients achieve GRESB global sector leadership and Hines Europe to achieve 100% in its Resilience score.

If you are interested in finding out more, get in touch with the team at contactus@evoraglobal.com.

How difficult can it be to develop software?

November 17, 2020/in Data /by Chris Bennett

Back in 2011 Paul, Ed and I founded EVORA Global, a niche sustainability consultancy focussed on the real estate investment market, driven by a passion to make a difference.

A year later we were winning more clients, gathering an abundance of data and our spreadsheets started bursting at the seams. Although there was a proliferation of energy management software around, sustainability software was thin on the ground. After a very brief relationship with a small outfit, which went bust even before the ink had dried on our agreement, we made the bold move of deciding to do it ourselves – I mean, how difficult could it be?

It’s worth noting at this point none of us had any software experience but when you’re budding entrepreneurs why let a minor point of naivety and ignorance get in the way of a great idea and enthusiasm.

My friend Pete, a software developer who had recently been made redundant, and had kicked off a mobile app business, was keen to support us. So, with a hefty budget of £30k supported by a ‘detailed’ design sketched out on numerous bits of paper, Pete launched off to create the best and latest sustainability software to wow our clients. And amazingly it was pretty good. How and why on earth do companies spend millions on software development we thought.

Ok, so we did more than double the budget that year to add a few bells and whistles and for at least 12 months all was looking good. But nothing is ever that straight forward. Our business was growing, our clients were getting more demanding and the software had been built on a simple (and cheap) framework to speed up development, which quickly hit a ceiling of scalability and functionality.

After a swift Board meeting the decision was made to up the investment in the software to create release two. In reality, this actually meant starting again from scratch but since we thought we knew what we were doing now, what could go wrong.

With a bigger budget Pete built Version 2 in a new framework and with some outside help. Again, it was impressive what we achieved but it was very much a tool for our consultants, rather than a client facing software product. This was not a necessarily a bad thing. It was driving internal productivity and ensuring the quality of data, something we’d become recognised for. But keen to engage and excite our clients, we designed some impressive reporting formats, outsourcing the development to a third party. We learnt a lot at this stage, most of it painful and costly.

Having negotiated what seemed like a great deal with the outsourcing company, the reality is you get what you pay for. The ineptitude of one of their staff highlighted this, when we happened to stumble upon a tweet from one of their juniors saying how great it was to be put in charge of a project having only recently graduated – yes, our project.

Major overruns and a proliferation of bugs, which went untested turned out not to be the major issue. We’d developed an ‘almost’ amazing interactive front end…. which our clients did not want to use – “Just send us PDF prints” was the feedback. The problem was there was no PDF print functionality – somehow, we’d missed this during our market evaluation.

So fast forward several years and we now have a dedicated inhouse team of 10 software professionals who are great at what they do, producing a fantastic software platform, SIERA.

We have now, like the others, spent several millions on the software – all self-funded I might add. SIERA is used by our consultants (all 47 of them) to deliver tech enabled solutions to our clients – and it does it amazingly well. And it has helped us win some major instructions with leaders in the industry such as Schroders, LGIM, UBS, Hines and The Crown Estate.

Until recently, our investment has been predominantly under the bonnet, rather than client facing. In simple terms, if other sustainability software products are like a getting into a shiny BMW, SIERA is like getting into the cockpit of an Airbus – you need a pilot to fly it, but you’ll get way further. SIERA is different to its competitors, and better.

Investing in SIERA is a continual process and we work with experts to create the optimal experience for the many types of users who engage with SIERA. Most recently we released our Climate Risk functionality that supports investment managers in setting and tracking their energy and net zero carbon targets, whilst highlighting high energy intensity buildings with poor energy ratings. It’s this level of insight that enables us to uniquely support our clients in managing their risks.

SIERA is an incredibly powerful software tool, totally niche to the real estate investment market. It helps our consultants to deliver amazing solutions to our clients, and it helps our clients understand and reach their sustainability goals. This is the essence of who we are.

I’ll keep you updated on SIERA’s continued evolution, in the meantime, if you’re interested in finding out more about SIERA please let me know.

cbennett@evoraglobal.com

Climate Risk Readiness White Paper

September 22, 2020/in Data, Sustainability /by Sonny Masero

1. Why is climate change such an important investment risk for investors in real estate & infrastructure?

A summary of the factors driving change in the real asset markets.

In early 2020, before the pandemic hit, BlackRock’s Larry Fink called out the fact that “Climate Change is Investment Risk”. Three paragraphs of his annual letter stood out, highlighting the connection between material climate risk, their impact pathways, and the drivers of asset value:

“Will cities be able to afford their infrastructure needs as climate risk reshapes the market for municipal bonds? What will happen to the 30-year mortgage – a key building block of finance – if lenders can’t estimate the impact of climate risk over such a long timeline, and if there is no viable market for flood or fire insurance in impacted areas? What happens to inflation, and in turn interest rates, if the cost of food climbs from drought and flooding? How can we model economic growth if emerging markets see their productivity decline due to extreme heat and other climate impacts?

“Investors are increasingly reckoning with these questions and recognizing that climate risk is investment risk. Indeed, climate change is almost invariably the top issue that clients around the world raise with BlackRock. From Europe to Australia, South America to China, Florida to Oregon, investors are asking how they should modify their portfolios. They are seeking to understand both the physical risks associated with climate change as well as the ways that climate policy will impact prices, costs, and demand across the entire economy.

“These questions are driving a profound reassessment of risk and asset values. And because capital markets pull future risk forward, we will see changes in capital allocation more quickly than we see changes to the climate itself. In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.”

On its own, this proclamation from the CEO of the world’s largest asset manager might have created a few ripples in the investment markets, but not create a wholesale market transformation. However, the letter sandwiched an unprecedented period in the history of mankind’s battle with climate change. At the end of 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) published a Special Report on the impact of global warming of 1.5°C, which provided a stark warning about the consequences of inaction on climate change. In the period between these two events, several other activities took place which reinforce the market change:

Public opinion about the need to act on climate change shifted significantly in favour of action, in no small part to the meteoric rise in popularity of Greta Thunberg’s ‘Fridays for Future’ school children protests and the disruption caused by other campaign groups, such as Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests, and legal class actions brought forward by student groups around the world.
Climate science and the quality of climate modelling continues to improve, with recent work showing that the likely outcome of global warming will be between an average global warming of 2.6°C and 3.9°C. This is well above the low-risk threshold of 2°C agreed at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit (COP 21) and the preferred target of 1.5°C.
Significant capital reallocation towards delivering ESG objectives happened during 2019 and continued into 2020.

These factors, combined with new and forthcoming government regulations, would suggest that climate change and broader sustainability (or Environmental, Social & Governance) issues are here to stay for investors. Their material impact on financial returns is starting to become better understood as more time and money is invested in improving our knowledge and its application in real asset investment markets. Ignorance of these issues is no longer an excuse.

The way in which climate risks are being understood is in 3 categories:

Physical risk
Transition risk
Litigation, or Liability, risk

For physical risk, the first step is to understand which climate-related hazards present a material risk, both now and over the period of an investment, including the disposal value. For instance, the materiality of a flood hazard could increase over time as climate change creates the conditions for more frequent and/or more severe floods causing damage or disruption to an asset. The impact pathway for that hazard could be that the repair costs and frequency of the floods means that an asset becomes uninsurable. Another impact pathway could be that the flooding makes it impossible to access an asset, which in turn reduces occupancy and the related revenue that generates.

The complex nature of the changes brought about by our warming climate means that the risk hazards and impact pathways could influence the drivers of asset value in multiple ways.

Whilst some of these material risks are apparent today, there are many others which will become much more visible over the coming decade. The trends that we see which could accelerate changes to asset value include: increased environmental & social disruption; increasing government regulation; and the internalisation of these costs to mitigate climate change and to adapt to the consequences. Companies and asset managers need to be prepared to avoid the risk of litigation.

2. What are the expectations for how investors and asset managers will respond to climate risks?

There is increasing certainty about how to be prepared to action.

Climate-related financial risk is a new topic for investors. In 2015, Mark Carney, as the Governor of the Bank of England, gave a speech which warned of the threat of climate change to financial stability. He spoke of the “Tragedy of the Horizon” where inaction on climate change today imposes a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix. Meaning that the time horizon for decision-making in typical business and investment cycle is not suitable for tackling the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Earlier in the same year, the G20 asked the international Financial Stability Board (FSB) to report on how climate change risks could be accounted for in the financial sector. Both of these events were precursors to the UN Climate Summit (COP21) in Paris later that year. The international political agreement reached at COP21 was a watershed for international climate policy as governments agreed that a target of limiting global warming to 2°C is a necessity to avoid catastrophic changes and that getting well-below this figure was desirable, so 1.5°C is the stretch target. To achieve this target collectively, we need to stabilise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent, by 2050 – also known as getting to Net Zero Carbon or being Carbon Neutral by 2050. Failure to do this will mean that the Earth will continue to warm and the financial losses will be much greater.

This growing recognition that climate change and the related financial risks have to be considered in the financial markets led to the announcement during COP21 to establish a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) under the auspices of the FSB and chaired by Michael Bloomberg. The TCFD will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies and asset managers in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders. Considering the physical, liability and transition risks associated with climate change.

One year later the TCFD published its Recommendations for consultation, which were finalised by the summer of 2017. Over the last 3 years since the Recommendations were released there has been considerable efforts made by the FSB-TCFD to build support for their adoption by actors in the financial markets. Recognising that preparing an organisation to embed a comprehensive response to climate-related risks could take 3 years.

In parallel to this promotion of TCFD over the last 3 years, GRESB has been piloting a Climate Risk Module as part of their annual disclosure and benchmarking process specifically for real estate and infrastructure. Other international Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG)/Sustainability reporting standards have also promoted more effective consideration of climate risks and preparedness.

Every year the UN published an Emissions Gap Report. In 2019, the report stated that we need to reduce global GHG emissions by 7.6% every year between 2020-2030. If we don’t start that level of reduction now, then by 2025 we will have to reduce emissions by 15.5% every year to hit the target and this will be more costly and still necessary. The later that we leave act to mitigate GHG emissions, the higher the annual cost of mitigation action and the increased likelihood of increase cost of adaptation to a changed climate. Many companies have now adopted science-based targets aligned with the UN to reduce emissions and to get to zero. Governments are following suit.

The Recommendations of the TCFD are not requirements, they provide voluntary guidance intended to help companies acting in the financial markets to better manage and disclose climate-related financial information. There are four key design features of these recommendations:

They can be adopted by all organisations
They are intended to be included in financial filings
They are designed to solicit decision-useful, forward-looking information on financial impacts
They have a strong focus on risks and opportunities related to the transition to a lower-carbon economy

As investors and asset managers consider how climate risks can be considered in their organisations, the TCFD core elements shown below provide a useful structure for getting the organisation ready to disclose the relevant financial information. The TCFD recommendations should be familiar in structure to CFOs and are reinforced by a recent opinion from IASB which recommends that IFRS reporting should include climate risk disclosure. This is almost a precursor to action on individual assets as the structure allows for a strategic approach to be systematically embedded in risk management and then embedded across all levels of the organisation, from corporate through entities / funds, investment, disposal, development and asset management processes.

EY’s ‘Global Climate Risk Disclosure Barometer’, which reviews the disclosure of 500 companies from 18 countries, shows mixed progress in 2019 in the adoption of the TCFD recommendations. Most progress has been made on ‘Metrics & Targets’ and ‘Governance’, whilst the quality of ‘Strategy’ and ‘Risk Management’ are the least developed. Their sector by sector comparison shows that the ‘Real Estate’ and ‘Asset Owners & Asset Managers’ sectors have made the least progress, in terms of coverage and quality. Suggesting that there is significant progress to be made by real estate investors and asset managers to be ready to manage and report on climate-related financial risks.

Whilst the TCFD Recommendations are voluntary, they are a precursor to mandatory disclosure in Europe resulting from the EU ‘Action Plan on Sustainable Finance’. At least for publicly listed companies and funds. Regulations which begin in 2021 will start this process of increasing disclosure.

The EU Taxonomy Regulation has set out a standard set of environmental impact categories, including Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation. This Regulation has established the principle of Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) and has set thresholds for what a ‘Significant’ positive impact looks like. It is expected that companies active in the EU will provide disclosure aligned to this taxonomy and it will provide investors with a common lexicon to use in global due diligence and in the scrutiny of fund performance as we experience more capital flowing into ESG funds.

3. How can a company ensure that they are prepared as an organisation to discharge their fiduciary duty?

There are clear steps that can be taken to be prepared to manage climate risks.

EVORA Global advises real estate and infrastructure investors and asset management in Europe and the USA who have global funds, with assets under management in over 30 countries. Our experience with these organisations has shown that there is a broad spectrum of Climate Risk Readiness. From the largest to the smallest they are considering how they respond to climate-related financial risks. They are having to do so now to ensure that they have access to the best capital.

To get ready, an organisation can undertake a Climate Risk Readiness Gap Analysis, which can be displayed on our EVORA Climate Risk Readiness Radar and compared to their peers. This assessment looks at the organisational readiness and is aligned with the TCFD Recommendations and upcoming regulations. It can be supplemented with fund and asset-level scoring of climate risk exposure and management readiness.

The EVORA Climate Risk Readiness Radar provides an evidence-based scoring mechanism to compare progress. Under each of the five categories – Governance; Strategy; Risk Management; Metrics & Targets; and Disclosure – there are five levels of organisational readiness, and each level has an associated set of actions. For instance, Level 1 Governance required all Board member are trained to understand their fiduciary duty regarding climate risk, including their main materials risks and disclosure responsibilities and requirements. The associated set of actions includes a risk materiality assessment of the organisation’s assets; formal training for the Board; and a declaration by the Board that all of its members have confirmed their understanding.

By understanding this gap analysis of organisational readiness, it is then possible to set out a roadmap for the coming years. This will enable the organisation to communication a clear plan to investors and other stakeholders.

Level 1 Strategy contributes to Level 1 Governance as it requires an assessment of material physical and transition risks through the use of climate scenario analysis. This should be segmented by time horizon, geography and/or sector. As this modelling is a standard requirement for getting to grips with climate risk there are several data analysis software tools now available on the market. The EVORA team has been evaluating which specialist data analysis partner to work with.

The majority of data services available today are focused on analysing physical risks, like the extreme weather impacts of heat, flooding and storms. Our approach to assessing the materiality of physical risks, and to answer the question “so what?”, is in three broad phases:

A portfolio or fund screening of a range of weather hazards to prioritise a deeper investigation of the high-risk assets,
An assessment of the impact pathways to create a shared understanding of how the hazard risk could impact the drivers of asset value, and
A detailed investigation and assessment at asset-level of the specific, material hazards which impact value and are prioritised from 1 & 2 above.

These three phases provide a deeper understanding of risk than a high-level screening can provide. The intention is that this provides a detailed evidence base on which to define a credible, effective and appropriate climate risk strategy and the related processes for risk management. Both of these areas of climate risk management are presently considered weak in most company disclosures.

Today, there is not an existing data partner which can deliver on all three of these phases end-to-end so we collaborate with specialist partners to deliver a comprehensive Climate Risk Materiality Portfolio Assessment service for fund managers. EVORA usually extends this assessment to also cover Transition Risks, in particular forthcoming regulations which could affect value.

These two EVORA Assessments on Readiness and Materiality are essential building blocks in understanding the effort and exposure for an organisation’s preparedness on climate-related financial disclosure. The outputs will provide a clear roadmap for integration over the next few years.

Investor expectations of climate risk have moved on quickly over the last few years. Our expectation is that this acceleration in understanding and scrutiny will continue. Reinforced by new regulations, particularly the regulations flowing from the EU Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth and Paris’ climate mitigation goals, ever-improving climate models and continued emissions of greenhouse gases which are not in line with a Net Zero Carbon trajectory. Those investors who are not prepared are much more likely to acquire assets which are at risk, that is not aligned with science-based decarbonisation pathways and/or exposed to a changed climate. The need for organisational preparedness, embedded across all aspects of investment – i.e. asset management; acquisitions; developments; and disposal – is essential portfolio management. Good quality data and information is vital in delivering expected returns in a market which is transitioning to become low-carbon and adapted for a changed climate.

EVORA is engaging with companies and relevant institutions to better prepare the real estate and infrastructure sectors for climate mitigation and adaptation disclosure. The approach outlined in this paper is difficult to fast-track in large organisations to ensure it is properly integrated. One of the biggest challenges which remains is solving the ‘Tragedy of the Horizon’ as this means that the actions required in an investment portfolio cannot always be taken within the investment lifecycle. The TCFD initiative is designed to address this challenge and, to be successful, this requires early and comprehensive adoption by real estate actors. We would recommend to our clients that early action on climate risk reduces the risk of Litigation or Liability Risk, as well as falling disposal values of asset exposed to Transition and Physical Risks. The steps outlined here will guide substantial and measurable progress.

EVORA’s Climate Resilience Service

A Law of Significance

June 24, 2020/in Data, News & Views /by Sonny Masero

On Friday 19th June, the European Parliament adopted the Taxonomy Regulation. This could be the most significant piece of legislation which affects the treatment of sustainability risks by the European investment community. The Taxonomy is more than a system of classification of ESG risks and opportunities – its weight could make ripples around the global investment community.

Whilst ESG has been a niche investment class for the last couple of decades, the difference now is that Climate Change is seen as a mainstream investment risk. As Larry Flint said earlier this year, “Climate Risk is Investment Risk”. The members of the UN Asset-Owners Alliance, managing $4.7tn of assets, have committed to transition their portfolios to Net Zero Carbon by 2050. The world’s largest pension funds – GPIF, CalSTRS & USS – list climate change as their biggest ESG risk. This is not a niche regulation. It is expected to directly affect 7,000 listed companies and all issued fund-managed products.

Whilst the Taxonomy’s main focus is on environmental issues – i.e. Climate Change Mitigation; Climate Change Adaptation; Sustainable & Protection of Water & Marine Resources; Transition to a Circulate Economy; Pollution Prevention & Control; and Protection & Restoration of Biodiversity & Ecosystems – it also has minimum social safeguards. Further legislation is expected to better regulate the social impact of investments so this Taxonomy is not the end in correcting existing market distortions.

The Taxonomy is important because it intervenes in how environmental investments are classified. It also sets our screening criteria and thresholds of significance. This is influential because it describes thresholds for a variety of activities. The thresholds are markers for what a ‘Significant Contribution’ is to tackling a particular challenge, like Climate Change Mitigation. It also sets in law thresholds for Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) so if you are investing to make a Significant Contribution to tackling Climate Change Mitigation you must also DNSH to Biodiversity.

For climate change mitigation, a 50%-55% reduction in emissions by 2030 is one criteria and net-zero by 2050 obviously. The weighty Technical Appendix, which accompanies the Taxonomy guidance, is more detailed and sets significance thresholds for a range of activities, including construction and the improvement of property:

“Acquisition and ownership: buildings built after 2021 are eligible if they meet the criteria for the ‘Construction of new buildings’, while buildings built before 2021 are eligible if their performance is comparable to the performance of the top 15% of the national stock, in terms of calculated Primary Energy Demand during the use phase. An additional requirement is applied only to large non-residential buildings (built both before and after 2021) to ensure efficient operations through energy management.
“Construction of new buildings: to be eligible, the design and construction of new buildings need to ensure a net primary energy demand that is at least 20% lower than the level mandated by national regulations. This is assessed through the calculated energy performance of the building, i.e. performance forecasted on the basis of modelling building physics under typical climatic and occupancy conditions.”

These criteria and thresholds are set out now and will be reviewed on 3-year cycle. You can expect them to ratchet up every 5 years so if you have long-term holds in your fund it is important to be aware of this process. The publication of this Taxonomy now is valuable because it can be built into due diligence processes and investment appraisals, including risks to income, growth and exit value. The start of 2022 is when this disclosure requirement will come into effect, but expect the preparation to start now.

The Taxonomy Regulation builds on the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and the recent Regulation on the Disclosure of Sustainability Risks in Financial Services, which sets out high-level requirements for clear communication of these investment risks from March 2021. These are all key legal components of the European Green New Deal and the related Action Plan on Sustainable Finance.

Data is key to compliance with these regulations as these are measurable criteria. By investing over the next 12 months in the right data model and software platform will provide a competitive advantage. EVORA’s advisory team and our SIERA software platform can help real asset investors navigate their way through this emerging legislation, which is a key transition risk and opportunity as we move to a greener economy.

Coincidentally, the 19th June is also Juneteenth, which is an internationally significant day for social equality. It marks the day on which the US Emancipation Proclamation was finally enforced in Texas in 1865. This brought to the end the abhorrent practice of “investment” in slaves as “property”, which directly affected three continents and has repercussions around the world up until the present day.

Today’s Black Lives Matter movement is a tangible reminder of why ethical and environmental investment decisions made today do matter for generations. This has been true for slavery and will be true for our environmental and social governance now and in the near future. If we don’t get it right now, future generations may well look back on us and ask why we didn’t take more responsibility.

If you would like to attend a training session on EU Legislation and Taxonomy, please email training@evoraglobal.com where we can provide you with information on dates and times.

A 2050 target but no time to spare!

April 21, 2020/in Data, Sustainability /by Lucy Curtis

By Lucy Curtis and Peter Willcocks

We are now in a critical period requiring rapid and urgent action to retrofit our buildings in a bid to address climate change. The Paris Agreement set a global imperative ¹ to restrict global warming to 2⁰C or below. To achieve this ambition, global greenhouse gas emissions need to reduce rapidly today with developed economies ultimately becoming Net Zero by 2050. We cannot afford to bide our time and cut emissions later.

Several policy drivers are now facilitating a step change in emissions reduction not within the next 30 years, but within the next 10 years. For example, under the European Green Deal, the EU Commission has recently furthered its ambition to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels. Also, the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) aims to improve energy efficiency by at least 32.5% by 2030 with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) setting out regulations to increase the rate and depth of building retrofit programs. Countries are also formulating long-term national strategies to achieve ‘Net Zero carbon’ targets by 2050 including mobilizing significant investment in innovation and sustainable economic activity such as renewable energy and decarbonization of the energy system.

Those leading the way in commercial real estate have signed the BBP’s Climate Change Commitment and will be disclosing plans to achieve Net Zero carbon by 2050 by the end of this year. ² It is today’s actions that will determine whether intermediate and long-term targets are achieved, but it is crucial that immediate action is coupled with longer term planning in order to minimize costs.

Risks & Opportunities

In the transition to a low-carbon economy, investment manager’s fiduciary responsibility will increasingly include assessment of how climate-related ‘transition’ risks, such as the legislative risks described above, will impact asset values. Such considerations will need to be included in future investment strategies and decision making.

Buildings where energy and carbon performance is not improving in line with emission reduction targets may be exposed to “stranding” risks. These risks could include a reduced investor, market and tenant demand, and exposure to increasing energy costs and carbon pricing. As a result, these assets may require significant capital investment to meet stringent energy and carbon performance regulations.

The recommendations from the Taskforce for Climate Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), that are currently progressing towards mandatory disclosure, will require investment managers to identify, assess and effectively manage these potentially material financial risks. But it’s not all about risks. TCFD will also require investment managers to identify opportunities as improving energy and carbon performance increasingly serves to enhance and preserve asset value and secure long-term income streams by minimizing associated costs.

To improve forward-looking decision making and aid financial planning, specific tools are becoming available such as the Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) developed in partnership with institutional investors and industry bodies including GRESB. The CRREM tool provides country and property use emission intensity benchmarks that are aligned with global warming scenarios of 2⁰C or below. It projects current building emissions intensity, allowing for factors such as grid decarbonization, and assessment of low-carbon transition “stranding” risks where factors such as future carbon pricing can be analyzed under a number of scenarios.

Data, data, data

Transition risks will increasingly be associated with whole building energy consumption and emissions intensity. To begin to assess risks, set targets to reduce building emissions and plan for Net Zero, the full picture of the current whole building energy consumption is needed.

Existing assets will most likely include tenant-controlled areas, which pose challenges for data acquisition especially for those with difficult-to-reach tenants on FRI leases and long-term leases in core strategic assets. ³ In addition to leveraging green lease clauses, building good tenant relationships will be key to unlocking tenant data. The installation of AMRs and partnerships with data collection agencies, will both be crucial to circumvent the inherently inefficient process of collecting data manually from property managers.

The Future is Decided Now

With only two retrofit cycles left to 2050 ⁴, long-term initiatives must be carefully planned to ensure intermediate emission and energy reduction targets are met while aiming towards a Net Zero emissions future.

Conducting this forward-looking assessment to meet these targets, and assessing the transition risks and opportunities at an asset level, may require changes in the process by which investment managers currently plan renovations and M&E upgrades across the asset hold period. However, by identifying the worst performing assets and implementing programs of Net Zero audits across portfolios, investment managers can begin to identify and plan the required measures to meet this ambition. It is also important to ensure sufficient depth of retrofit as opportunities arise within the retrofit cycle. Initiatives such as long-term Building Retrofit Passports, as proposed under the EPBD, will also help advance this agenda and assist in the planning process.

The usual practice of like-for-like replacements may no longer be sufficient but by making significant investments in energy efficiency and taking maximum advantage of retrofit opportunities in the short and medium-term, these costs can be minimized.

2050 may seem like a long time away, but investment managers need to act now to implement sustainability programs with the associated risks assessments and financial planning to ensure portfolios and investment strategies remain resilient as we transition to a low-carbon economy.

This article was originally published on GRESB Insights

¹ The international community convened in 2016 to sign the Paris Agreement, committing to limit global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
² http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/node/877

³ http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachment/bbp-low-carbon-retrofit-toolkit.pdf

⁴ https://www.jll.co.uk/en/newsroom/jll-commits-to-making-net-zero-carbon-mainstream

EVORA delivers £373k savings in first year of M&T module

September 5, 2019/in Data /by Rebecca Blewett

Our SIERA Monitoring & Targeting (M&T) module had its first birthday earlier this year, so we decided to take the time to reflect back on all it has achieved in its first year.

Since the module’s release in February 2018, EVORA has begun driving energy efficiency at 51 assets across eleven clients via SIERA Energy M&T programmes. In the first twelve months, these programmes saved 4.1 million kilowatt hours of energy, equating to a cost saving of £373,00 and preventing 1,862 tonnes of carbon emissions.

The backstory

As our Managing Director Chris Bennett explains:

“We had sought an Energy Monitoring and Targeting platform to meet our specific requirements, but we struggled to identify a system that provided both the functional capability and practical approach we needed as energy consultants. Having developed our own sustainability management software, SIERA, it seemed a natural progression to develop our own M&T platform. The end product has given us the optimal tool to support in delivering energy efficiency in buildings and has gained widespread approval by the industry. At the same time, we now have an integrated sustainability and energy management platform, where one set of data both helps optimise energy efficiency, whilst feeding into external reporting requirements such as GRESB”.

Following a combined product development effort between our Consultancy and Software Development teams during 2017, EVORA began its first Monitoring & Targeting programmes in February 2018. We have since produced M&T reports in 3 languages, at a portfolio which now comprises 51 buildings; totalling approximately 6.7 million square feet. 11 clients across 6 countries are now optimising their buildings with the support of smart meter data and our expert consultants.

How does it work?

Developed as a module within our holistic environmental data management software SIERA, M&T integrates directly with providers to pull smart meter data from the source and automatically acquire it on a real-time basis. This allows our expert consultants to feedback quickly on trends and anomalies, and to work with the site team to rectify issues and enhance performance, thereby maximising energy and cost savings.

EVORA Global M&T process — EVORA Monitoring and Targeting process

Successes

We have already seen significant improvements at a number of buildings. By deploying M&T programmes for AEW, EVORA have been able to reduce electricity consumption by 144,419 kWh at one of their largest assets in just 10 months, representing 18% of total electricity consumption and equating to savings of 41TCO₂e of carbon emissions and £16k on utility costs.

Success has not only been seen on the site level; via a set of targeted M&T programmes EVORA has helped drive efficiency across whole portfolios. Working with JLL on a series of UK DWS multi-let assets, M&T programme has contributed to an approximate 8% energy saving; totalling a cost–saving of £58,000.

Building Manager Emma Swan said, “EVORA’s Monitoring & Targeting Programme is working really well at 60 Queen Victoria Street, and we have already identified several improvements within the current plant setup that will help us further drive down electricity consumption and increase our overall sustainability credentials within the building. The monthly call helps to focus our attention on what changes can be easily made and the SIERA platform allows us to monitor consumption in real–time.”.

Across the clients involved in the Monitoring & Targeting programme over the first year, a total of 4.1 million kWh of energy has been saved, equating to 1,862 tonnes of CO2 and approximately £373k saving of utility costs. We’re extremely proud of the service we have been able to provide and the impact we have been able to have. We will continue to strive to improve and enhance the module to further drive efficiencies.

To find out more about M&T, contact us and one of our expert consultants will be happy to help.

GRESB 2018: over, not done with!

July 20, 2018/in Compliance, Data /by Paul Sutcliffe

With GRESB over we talked to a number of staff across our business to get a view on experiences faced, whilst it was still fresh in the team’s mind.

Supporting the team for our busiest ever GRESB season.

Paul Sutcliffe – Director

I’ve lost count of the number of GRESB submissions I have supported over the years. I do know that this year at EVORA we supported around 70 submissions, from a broad array of clients (covering sector Number 1s through to first time participants). Our busiest ever GRESB season!

Whilst we represent a broad array of participants with different fund structures and objectives, we do see some common themes. Our clients universally want to ensure that:

Sustainability policies and practices are effective and appropriate for their organisations
Their GRESB submission correctly and accurately reflects their true sustainability position.

There is a clear recognition and acceptance that GRESB is a one size fits all approach. To use a sloppy analogy – sometimes the shoe fits perfectly, other times it’s a bit loose, sometimes too tight, but everyone can still walk in it.

With the GRESB deadline of 12 noon Eastern US time fast approaching, I prepared myself for some long nights. I needn’t have worried though. Our team and clients mobilised, focused, used SIERA (our sustainability software platform) and worked hard to get everything in on time. Final confirmation, of the last submission (for me) came from the last of my clients early on Saturday morning. I breathed a sigh of relief. I had a weekend to enjoy!

One last thing. GRESB has been able to galvanize the industry and drive forward the sustainability agenda. Our industry should work with this and in particular, reflect when the results come out in September. I am a strong believer that GRESB should be used to inform, not drive individual organisational ESG agendas.

Time flies when it’s your first GRESB year!

Katie Brown – Junior Sustainability Consultant

As this was my first year supporting GRESB, there was a lot to grasp and a lot to learn, fast! The time flew, and on reflection preparation is key. Some elements of the submission would have been extremely challenging and time intensive to complete without the help of our SIERA software. We would not have been able to support so many submissions without it. It was important to plan well and communicate early – time well invested should be reflected in an accurate (and higher) GRESB score.

Some elements of the submission would have been extremely challenging and time intensive to complete without the help of our SIERA software. We would not have been able to support so many submissions without it.

I have been impressed that despite the focus on environmental performance of assets forming a core element of the survey, there is a broad spectrum of the sustainability agenda covered, with attention also on social and governance topics including health and safety, management, policies, and supply chains, just to name a few! Also, the inclusion of the health and wellbeing module, and this year a new module on resilience, brings to the forefront important and emerging ESG trends.

The GRESB survey promotes much needed transparency of the sustainability efforts by businesses in the real estate sector, both as a benchmarking tool and providing greater visibility for investors, but also provides a great opportunity to guide and inform more ambitious and rigorous ESG strategies going forward.

It’s all about the data.

Nick Hogg – Associate Director (SIERA Software)

As those that have participated in the GRESB submission process will know, the amount of information and effort that can be required to provide a seemingly straight forward number in answering a GRESB question can be sometimes underestimated. The Performance Indicators is an aspect where this can challenge participants due to sheer quantum of data that might need to be handled across all the impact areas for an entity, not least with more participants submitting data at asset level.

Across all the submissions we were supporting on this year we found that SIERA handled over half a million datapoints through the Asset level interface alone. We have blogged before that GRESB have allowed the automated transfer of Performance Indicator (PI) data from sustainability management software systems, such as SIERA, directly into the GRESB portal for the last few years. We found this automated transfer of data through SIERA vital, not just in trying to make the complexity of reporting more efficient but essential in establishing a robust and transparent method of reporting asset level data.

Across all the submissions we were supporting on this year we found that SIERA handled over half a million datapoints through the Asset level interface alone.

We introduced additional functionality in SIERA this year to further automate the calculation of energy, GHG and water intensity and have plans to continue expansion of SIERA’s GRESB capability over the coming months.

Submissions are done, but it’s not over!

Louise Russell – Senior Sustainability Consultant

This will have been my fourth year supporting GRESB clients. I support a variety of clients each at a different stage on their sustainability journey. Existing clients who are already hot on sustainability continue to maintain leading positions principally due to their wider sustainability programmes which we support during the year. For them, GRESB is useful to benchmark the position of their various funds against peers and internally. However, GRESB is not the driver and broader sustainability as well as responsible investing is something that is taken very seriously.

For my clients that were newcomers to GRESB this was the first time that they as an organisation considered what sustainability means to them. Clients are often surprised by what is already in place within their organisations albeit via an unstructured approach. Where we assist is coordinating the various stakeholders to collate the responses. Whilst we never advise that a sustainability strategy should be GRESB driven it does act as a gateway for those approaching sustainability for the first time.

The key to this is starting early especially for those clients that report in calendar year, waiting until the results come out in September will only allow just over three months to December to make improvements before the GRESB reporting year is over.

Now that we are post-GRESB these same clients are looking to build on their existing processes, formalise their sustainability strategy and put in place a sustainability programme that will deliver an improved score in 2019. The key to this is starting early especially for those clients that report in calendar year, waiting until the results come out in September will only allow just over three months to December to make improvements before the GRESB reporting year is over.

If you have anymore questions about the content of this blog or GRESB in general, get in touch and our team of experts will be happy to help.

As a GRESB Real Estate Premier Partner, we are perfectly positioned to provide GRESB support. View our official Premier Partner profile.

We can work with you to complete the submission and understand your scoring, as well as develop a sustainability plan that will improve your future GRESB performance and align with your organisation’s key environmental objectives.

GRESB Support 2018

April 24, 2018/in Compliance, Data, Energy /by Serwaa Boateng

GRESB reporting season for real estate and infrastructure participants is here again, and as a GRESB Premier Partner, EVORA is recognised as a leader in the provision of GRESB support, including training and strategic insight.

We have provided GRESB support for the last six years, and in 2017 we directly supported over 50 submissions from organisations that represent a cross section of the European property industry. We have helped clients get on the GRESB ladder and have equally supported clients to be market leaders.

We sit on a number of GRESB benchmark committees and our close working relationship with GRESB ensures that we are prepared and aware of future changes.

With our experience and expertise in this ever-emerging market sector, we ran a webinar last week with participants across Europe on our end to end service Titled “How to overcome GRESB challenges and achieve your best score”.

In this session we shared valuable insights and tips in a 5-point GRESB strategy, to increase awareness on how to get the best out of the reporting process and how you can align GRESB ratings with your long-term sustainability strategy.

Five point GRESB strategy

Our GRESB strategy covered an action plan for a seamless GRESB submission process. A quick recap is set out below.

Plan your next GRESB submission in advance. Map out a plan on who to talk to, what to ask and which evidence you need to provide.
Reduce the complexity of reporting by engaging in a streamlined process with your property managers. At EVORA, our consultants provide asset-level templates to property managers, to help in the collation of asset-based questions such as technical assessments, tenant engagement and efficiency measures.
Improve scoring, where appropriate. Don’t miss out on easy points, discounting your reporting efforts by not meeting validation requirements. Read more here on our GRESB verification blog on how to ensure your response is accurate and acceptable by GRESB.
Focus on data integrity and performance. Our proprietary software SIERA ensures that the process of data management is transparent, accurate and robust.
Finally set actions for future success. GRESB addresses several key areas of an EMS within their survey such as management responsibilities, communication, training, objectives and, importantly, the results they are delivering. Developing an EMS therefore seems an appropriate approach to score well in GRESB. Find out here how a Plan-Do-Check-Act (EMS) approach can impact your GRESB score.

Final thoughts for GRESB success in 2018;

Start early / now!
Engage with internal colleagues and external stakeholders
Understand indicator intent and scoring requirements
Gather evidence and identify alignment to requirements
To make it easy on yourself and others – get in touch and our team of experts will be happy to help.

We are perfectly positioned to provide GRESB support. View our official Premier Partner profile.

GRESB Infrastructure Survey: What is it?

April 5, 2018/in Compliance, Data /by Simon Cripps

EVORA is now entering its seventh year of helping entities produce GRESB Real Estate Survey submissions, and with each passing cycle we have accrued more expertise, expanded our client base, and become leaders in the field. Last year we provided comprehensive support to 26 funds and general support to many others, and this year the figure is set to get even higher as we gain greater recognition for our expertise.

But GRESB offers more than just the Real Estate Survey, and for 2018 we have expanded our scope of services to include the GRESB Infrastructure Survey.

What is the GRESB Infrastructure Survey?

Much like its real estate equivalent, the GRESB Infrastructure Survey is an investor-driven assessment of ESG (Environmental-Social-Governance) performance for entities.

Much of the content is also very similar, however the setup of the Infrastructure Survey is quite different from that of GRESB Real Estate, as it is broken down into two sub-surveys: 1) the Fund Assessment and 2) the Asset Assessment.

The Fund Assessment is a relatively small element of the overall survey, and focuses on ESG policies and principles, persons responsible for ESG issues, and the monitoring and mitigation of ESG risks, at the entity level.

Meanwhile, it is the Asset Assessment that is broken down into the familiar Management, Policy & Disclosure, Risks & Opportunities, Monitoring & EMS, Stakeholder Engagement, Performance Indicators, and Certification & Awards modules, albeit with differences in the questions themselves and the distribution of points compared to GRESB Real Estate. Additional content includes questions relating specifically to biodiversity and air pollutants in the Performance Indicators section, whilst there is for example less focus on certification.

An optional Resilience module has also been introduced for GRESB Real Estate and GRESB Infrastructure in 2018 – you can read more about it here.

Asset Assessments – Weighted Asset Average

You are free to submit a standalone Fund Assessment without asset-level evaluation if you wish. However, to get an overall GRESB Infrastructure score you must also complete the Asset Assessment for at least 25% of your portfolio (usually weighted by GAV). Furthermore, there is an advantage to completing Asset Assessments for as many assets as possible, as your scores are collated into a Weighted Asset Average (WAA) where assets that did not complete an Asset Assessment score zero.

Your WAA is worth 70% of the final GRESB score, with the Fund Assessment making up the other 30%. A simple example calculation is provided below:

Combined with an example Fund Assessment score of 76, the overall GRESB score would be:

(56 x 70%) + (76 x 30%) = 62

Which represents:

(WAA Score x Asset Assessment Weighting) + (Fund Score x Fund Assessment Weighting) = Overall Score

The GRESB Infrastructure Survey is comprehensive in its coverage of ESG content, whilst also allowing a wide range of infrastructure assets, from airports to schools to toll roads to windfarms, to be compared. ESG issues matter for all forms of built infrastructure, and GRESB provides an ideal platform to meet investor and public demand for improved sustainable performance.

If you think GRESB Infrastructure might be for you, then get in touch and our team of experts will be happy to help.