[3.13] Independent Assurance Statement Supplement

This report has been subjected to an independent assurance by Two Tomorrows, which recently merged with csrnetwork, the firm that provided assurance for our two previous reports. In conducting the assurance, Two Tomorrows evaluated the Materiality, Completeness and Responsiveness in the report in line with the guidelines of the AA1000 Assurance Standard (2003) as well as the requirements for reporting at the B+ level for the Global Reporting Initiative G3 guidelines.

Independent Assurance Statement

Scope and objectives

ProLogis commissioned Two Tomorrows to offer independent assurance on its 2008 Sustainability Report. The scope of our assurance work included:

• All information within the 2009 Sustainability Report, unless specifically excluded; and
• The GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) comparison table.

The scope of our assurance work excluded:

• Specific performance claims from case studies within the Report;
• Economic performance information;
• Any information presented on the ProLogis website that is not included in the 2008 Sustainability Report.

The objectives of the assurance process were to check claims and systems for collection of data, and to review the arrangements for the management and reporting of sustainability issues. The assurance process was conducted in accordance with the AA1000 Assurance Standard (2003).

Responsibilities of the management of ProLogis and the assurance providers
The management of ProLogis have sole responsibility for the preparation of the 2008 Sustainability Report and associated publications. In performing our assurance activities, our responsibility is to the management of ProLogis, however our statement represents our independent opinion and is intended to inform all of ProLogis' stakeholders, including the management of ProLogis. We were not involved in the preparation of any part of the Report. We have had no other contracts with ProLogis.

This is the third year that we have acted as independent assurance providers for ProLogis (in 2006 and 2007 we traded as Csrnetwork Ltd.). We adopt a balanced approach towards all ProLogis stakeholders and a Statement of Impartiality relating to our contract with ProLogis will be made available on request. The opinion expressed in this assurance statement should not be relied upon as the basis for any financial or investment decisions. The independent assurance team for this contract with ProLogis comprised Todd Cort and Jennifer Rosenberg. Further information, including a statement of competencies relating to the team can be found at: www.twotomorrows.com.

Basis of our opinion
Our work was designed to gather evidence on which to base our conclusions. We undertook the following activities:

• We conducted interviews with a selection of directors and senior managers responsible for areas of management and stakeholder relationships covered by the Report in Denver, CO. The objective of these discussions was to understand ProLogis' governance arrangements, stakeholder engagement process, management priorities and systems;
• We attended a meeting of the Sustainability Management Committee to assess the process for identifying and acting on material issues;
• We conducted a general review of issues raised by external parties that could be relevant to ProLogis' policies, to provide a check on the appropriateness of statements made in the Report;
• We visited one construction site in Juarez, Mexico. During the site visit, we interviewed local management and the contractor company responsible for project management. Site-level sustainability data for January through December 2008 was reviewed during the site visit;
• We reviewed full 12-month sustainability data collated at the corporate level, and claims made in the Report. We interviewed managers responsible for internal data validation, reviewed their work processes and undertook sample checks on consolidated sustainability data and also sustainability data submitted by the Juarez project site;
• We undertook an assessment of the company's reporting and management processes against the principles of materiality, completeness and responsiveness as described in the AA1000 Assurance Standard (2003).
• We assessed the company claims with regard to reporting against the GRI G3 voluntary standard for application level B.

Observations:

On the basis of the method and scope of work undertaken and the information provided to us by ProLogis, we believe:

Materiality – has ProLogis provided information on material issues to enable stakeholders to make informed judgements?

• Nothing came to our attention to suggest that material issues have been omitted from the scope of the Report. We found evidence that appropriate systems are in place for monitoring and gathering information on relevant management arrangements and performance for each of the aspects described in the Report.
• ProLogis has established a leadership position on green building design and construction for new buildings. However, the objectives and performance of existing buildings within the company portfolio do not yet match this position, although we note recent landmark initiatives such as the Department of Energy partnership to find innovative solutions to improve green aspects of existing buildings.
• The effort by ProLogis management over the last 18 months to develop a more robust materiality assessment is a positive example of progress. The next steps for ProLogis will be to link this materiality process to the business decision-making criteria (e.g. through the corporate risk management framework) and also to test the materiality criteria with internal and external stakeholders.
• During the site visit, we noted strong practices with regard to health and safety management and the selection of sites with low relocation or resettlement impacts. We recommend that ProLogis formalize these practices by strengthening health and safety data reporting and adopting a corporate policy on the selection of site locations that includes resettlement aspects.

Completeness – does ProLogis have systems in place to understand changes to stakeholder expectations and to provide complete and accurate information against the issues identified as material for inclusion in the Report?

• Nothing came to our attention to suggest that the data included in the Report have not been properly collated and calculated from information reported at operational level. We were unable to verify the authenticity of some source documentation for office energy use at some locations outside of the United States. However, the aggregated value of these un-verified sources is relatively small. Therefore, we consider there to be a minimal risk of material mis-statement with regard to carbon emissions.
• We note strong improvement in the data collection efforts for aspects related to LEED certification – such as waste data, water usage data, etc. However, for these data sets, the information is limited to operations that are being built to LEED standards (North American developments). The next challenge in data collation for ProLogis will be to collect equivalent and comparable data from all international operations.
• The installation of the Board Sustainability Committee and Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) are very positive developments from 2008. We recommend that the charter for the Committee be reviewed to explicitly cover aspects of social and economic sustainability.
• ProLogis has established strong corporate guidelines for ethical practice through the Code of Ethics. We recommend that these guidelines be explicitly extended to business partnerships and joint ventures.
• There appears to be an opportunity to create a more formal role for the ProLogis internal audit team on sustainability aspects through a regular schedule of audit activities.

Responsiveness – how does ProLogis demonstrate that it has responded to stakeholder concerns?

• Customer communication appears to be a strong point within the ProLogis stakeholder engagement effort. However, although ProLogis demonstrates a variety of innovative means to inform customers of sustainability initiatives, there is room to improve the mechanisms by which ProLogis hears customer priorities on sustainability issues and how this feedback is systematically evaluated and used to drive stronger decision-making. The result is that customer communication tends to focus on sustainability aspects with a clearly demonstrable business case such as lighting upgrades to enhance energy efficiency. Other opportunities such as reducing operational waste that could achieve greater benefits and promote best practice have not been pursued to the same extent.
• We believe that ProLogis has been highly responsive to employee expectations during the recent down-sizing.
• Mechanisms to engage with communities during design, build and operation are wide-ranging, but not systematic except where required by local regulatory agencies. We believe that a systematic process for community engagement based on proactive dialogue around key issues could add significant value. This process should include mechanisms for active dialogue, metrics to measure success and tools to raise awareness in employees and community members. Such a strategic approach could be extended to community investment activities as well, including activities led by the ProLogis Foundation.
• We note that some targets from the 2007 Sustainability Report have not yet been achieved – particularly with regard to human resources (revised employee handbook, increased commitment to the ProLogis University and a new Human Resources data system). We look forward to monitoring progress against these targets in the future.
• We have seen evidence that ProLogis is seeking expert feedback on sustainability aspects and believe that this is a positive step forward in corporate level stakeholder engagement. This type of engagement could be broadened to include expertise on a wider range of topics through a review panel or similar. Also, it would be valuable to stakeholders if ProLogis would explain how the feedback from expert review will be used to drive systematic decision-making on sustainability aspects.

Two Tomorrows
USA March 2009

     

Todd Cort                                             Jennifer Rosenberg
Project Director                                   Consultant

Two Tomorrows is a business focused, corporate social responsibility consultancy organization, bringing together specialists from the fields of environmental management, social accounting, and sustainable development.
Two Tomorrows North and South America (trading as Csrnetwork) is a subsidiary of Two Tomorrows (Group) Limited (www.twotomorrows.com).