This report shows public data only. Is this your organisation? If so, login here to view your full report.

APG Asset Management

PRI reporting framework 2018

Export Public Responses

You are in Direct - Property » Outputs and outcomes

Outputs and outcomes

PR 15. ESG issues affected financial/ESG performance

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

15.1. Indicate whether your organisation measures how your approach to responsible investment in property investments has affected financial and/or ESG performance.

15.2a. Describe the impact on the following.

Describe the impact on:
Funds' financial performance

15.2b. Describe the impact on the following.

Describe the impact on:
Funds' ESG performance

15.3. Describe how you are able to determine these outcomes.

APG uses the annual GRESB survey for assessing and monitoring the sustainability performance of its real estate investments over time.

We have observed a significant improvement in the ESG performance of our property portfolio (as measured by GRESB) with a significant increase in the number of "Greenstars" and GRESB 4 or 5 star ratings. This is among others driven by the success of GRESB to set sector wide standards as well as our engagement activities.

PR 16. Examples of ESG issues that affected your property investments

16.1. Provide examples of ESG issues that affected your property investments during the reporting year.

ESG issue
          GRESB rating
Types of properties affected
          Real estate companies with a poor performance in GRESB
Impact (or potential impact) on investment

A low score in GRESB can be indicative of weaknesses in environmental management, anti-bribery and corruption, stakeholder engagement or risk management which could have a negative effect on the long term valuation of the company. 

Activities undertaken to influence the investment and the outcomes

On the basis of the GRESB 2017 results, we identified priority companies which were not participating in GRESB or scoring low, the GRESB 2017 results showed an increased number of participants and improved GRESB scores. Stemming from the 2017 results, again a list of 103 companies was identified based on 5 different priority criteria (e.g. low GRESB score, non-reporter, low energy data coverage).

16.2. Additional information. [Optional]