Download PDF

2018

Asset

Scoring Document

Contents

Document preface:

This document aims to outline the scoring methodology of the 2018 Infrastructure Asset Assessment. It is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes.

How to read this document?

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document provides a visual breakdown of each indicator score included in the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment. Since it does not include the reporting requirements of indicators, we recommend to read this document in conjunction with the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Reference Guide, available on our website at www.gresb.com/resources.

Each indicator presented in the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Scoring Document is presented in a consistent manner to reflect the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Asset Reference Guide. Numbers documented in red on the left side of each scored indicator have been added to provide the scoring breakdown of that indicator. In particular, the below icons have been applied to interpret the scoring document:

Examples of indicator level scoring:

Example 1: MA5 indicator:

Total score of MA5 amounts to 1.3 points (p). These 1.3p are split between:

Example 2: MA6 indicator:

The total score of MA6 amounts to 2.8 points (p). These 2.8p are split between:

As mentioned in the 2018 Reference Guide, the validation status of the evidence provided should meet the following criteria:

  1. The objective(s) should be specific, and the evidence supports each of the selected objectives.
  2. Objectives should relate to the entity level. If this is not clear in the provided evidence, ensure to explain how the organizational level objectives relate to the entity in the text field provided fior the location of the relevant information.
  3. Evidence should clearly indicate the public availability if the objectives (if applicable)

If you have any questions on how to interpet the information included in this document, please contact us via info@gresb.com.

Scoring Methodology

Aspect Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment is structured in to seven ESG Aspects. The weighted combination of scores for each Aspect generates the overall GRESB Score.

Aspect Weight (% Overall Score)
Management 12.3%
Policy & Disclosure 12.0%
Risks & Opportunities 22.3%
Monitoring & EMS 10.2%
Stakeholder Engagement 10.4%
Performance Indicators 30.2%
Certifications & Awards 2.5%

Indicator Scoring display

Within each indicator, the following scoring allocations are displayed:

  1. Total Points: The sum of the scores for each indicator adds up to a maximum of 100 points; the overall GRESB Score is expressed as a percentage – from 0 to 100. The rounded score for each indicator is displayed as points, above the text for each indicator.

  2. IM/MP Dimensions: To provide additional understanding of performance, the score is divided into two dimensions: Management & Policy (MP) and Implementation & Measurement (IM). The allocation to either IM or MP dimension is displyed in this format, above the text for each indicator.

  3. ESG Score: Each indicator is allocated to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E - environmental, S - Social, G - Governance). The allocation to either E, S or G dimension is displayed in this format, above the text for each indicator.

General Scoring Concepts

Points per indicator are decided by GRESB's governance committees in advance of the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment opening.

Section 2 scoring

The Asset Assessment adopts two main scoring concepts for Section 2.

Aggregated points: For indicators where you can select one or more sub-options, GRESB may award points cumulatively for each individual sub-option and then aggregates to calculate a final score for the indicator. This means that sub-options may be assigned a high or lower amount of points. For many indicators, this final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all answer sub-options in order to receive full points. This approach aims to reward best sustainability practices (i.e. more diligent disclosure practices).

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: Another scoring concept used frequently in the scoring of indicators is diminishing increase in scoring. The idea behind this concept is that the number of points achieved for each additional data point provided decreases as the number of provided data points increases. This means that the number of points achieved for the first data point will be higher than the number of points achieved for the second, which again will be higher than for the third, and so on. This approach is commonly adopted when there is a large list of actions and it is not necessarily considered better practice or feasible for all actions to be undertaken.

For each indicator, the Scoring Document will state if the Diminishing increase in scoring approach is applied. The text beneath the relevant indicator will state this and it is also represented by the display of the blue line around the checkboxes where this scoring approach applies.

Three Section Indicator

Most of the indicators in the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment are variations of what is considered the “Three Section Indicator”. A Three Section Indicator is made up of three sections, each scored separately, before being used for calculating the score for the indicator as a whole.

Section 1, 'Yes/No' answer: Always receives a score of either 1 or 0. This ensures that at least some points are awarded for answering yes.

Section 2, 'additional criteria' answer: Can receive a score between 0 and 1 and is determined by additional responses provided.

Section 3, 'evidence': This section consists of validated evidence which is intended to verify information provided in section 1 and 2 of the indicator. In the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment, evidence can be optional or mandatory, which is scored as follows:

The final indicator score is then calculated as:

Indicator score = (1/5 X Section 1 score + 4/5 X Section 2 score) X Section 3 score

This means that 20% of the score can be achieved in section 1, 80% in Section 2, with a multiplier effect in Section 3.

Materiality Scoring

In 2018, GRESB introduces materiality scoring for a selection of the Asset Assessment indicators. Participants are not expected to select all additional criteria to achieve the highest score. Participants will now be assessed on the ESG issues that are material to the infrastructure sector they operate in. The materiality weightings assigned per sector are displayed in the Appendix.

Materiality Scoring is only applied within specific Aspects, including i) Policy & Disclosure, ii) Risks & Opportunities, iii) Monitoring & EMS and iv) Performance Indicators. The Scoring Document clearly highlights if Materiality Scoring has been applied to each indicator. This is detailed in the text below the indicator and by the red 'M' symbol displayed to the left of the subsection where this scoring approach applies.

Management

This Aspect focuses on how the entity addresses ESG management.

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except MA2. The maximum number of points for the Aspect is 12.3 and this corresponds to 12.3% of the GRESB Score.

Materiality

2017 Indicator

1.3 points , MP, G

Only evidence is considered in the scoring for this indicator.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2018.

Objectives

2017 Indicator

2.8 points , MP, G

Points are awarded based on the whether the policies are publicly available (1x multiple) or not publicly available (0.75x multiple).

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Leadership & Accountability

2017 Indicator

1.3 points , MP, G

This indicator does not require evidence to be provided.

In this section, the respondent is required to report the name and title of the employee, but this information is not used for scoring.

1.3 points , MP, G

This indicator does not require evidence to be provided.

In this section, the respondent is required to report the name and title of the employee, but this information is not used for scoring.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2.8 points , MP, G

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Training

2017 Indicator

2.8 points , MP, G

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Policy & Disclosure

This Aspect focuses on the entity's ESG policies and approach to disclosure.

There are 7 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except PD7. The maximum number of points is 12.0 and this corresponds to 12.0% of the GRESB Score.

Policies

2017 Indicator

2 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If the sector materiality assessment has determined that an issue is 'not relevant' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2 points , MP, G

In 2018, the materiality weightings of the above governance issues was not impacted by the entity's primary sector. This is due to all governance issues being deemed as 'Relevant' for all sectors. However, materiality of governance issues may be applied in the future.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

ESG Disclosure

2017 Indicator

2 points , MP, G

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure practices in terms of reporting type and level.

Each form of ESG disclosure method is assigned with a maximum number of points, respectively achieved by:

  • The third-party alignment of the report (if applicable). The alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.
  • The reporting level (two reporting levels - Entity or Group - are mutually exclusive).

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2 points , MP, G

Scoring within this indicator seeks to reward best disclosure and review practices, with greater amount of points.

In order to achieve points for any of the checkboxes above, the number of points received in the corresponding section in PD4 must be higher than 0. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for assurance of a disclosure type unless they received points for that same disclosure type in PD4 (i.e. checkbox must be selected and evidence fully accepted in validation).

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Service Provider: A service provider has to be picked to achieve a score.

2 points , MP, G

No evidence is required for this indicator.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2018.

Risks & Opportunities

This Aspect focuses on the entity's understanding and mitigation of key sustainability risks and opportunities.

There are 5 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. This aspect corresponds to 22.3% of the GRESB Score.

In 2018, the structure of this Risks & Opportunities Aspect changed. This Aspect now includes indicator RO5, which was the single indicator previously incorporated within the Implementation Aspect in 2017.

Risk Assessments

2017 Indicator

3.7 points , MP, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If the sector materiality assessment has determined that an issue is 'not relevant' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

3.7 points , MP, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

3.7 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

In 2018, the materiality weightings of the above governance issues was not impacted by the entity's primary sector. This is due to all governance issues being deemed as 'Relevant' for all sectors. However, materiality of governance issues may be applied in the future.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Implementation

2017 Indicator

9.1 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Three Section Indicator. Section 2 contains 3 structurally identical sub-sections (environmental, social and governance tables). Each of the sub-sections contain a table and is scored using a diminishing increase in scoring approach, with at least 4 rows of data required to achieve the maximum score (per sub-section). Each row results in a different score depending on the coverage percentage reported for 'fraction of entity covered'. The scores resulting from the different coverage percentages are listed in the table below:

Coverage percentage Points
(Unknown) 0.50
(0%, 25%) 0.50
(25%, 50%) 0.66
(50%, 75%) 0.83
(75%, 100%) 1.00

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Each row or example of tangible action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score. Examples of stakeholder engagement actions should not be provided in this indicator, but should be addressed in SE 2, otherwise this will be considered a duplicate in Validation and receive no points.

Monitoring & EMS

This Aspect focuses on the entity's ESG monitoring practices.

There are 4 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored. The maximum number of points is 10.2 and this corresponds to 10.2% of the GRESB Score.

5.1 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

1.7 points , IM, E

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If the sector materiality assessment has determined that an issue is 'not relevant' then the issue is not considered at all in scoring (e.g. there is no impact on score whether or not the issue is addressed in policies). If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

1.7 points , IM, S

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Materiality scoring: The scoring of this indicator links to the Materiality for the entity's primary sector, as reported in RC 4. Refer Appendix 7 of GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide for Materiality Weightings.

If an issue is 'relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with ‘standard’ variable weighting. If an issue is 'highly relevant' then the issue counts towards the score with higher than ‘standard’ variable weighting.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

1.7 points , IM, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

In 2018, the materiality weightings of the above governance issues was not impacted by the entity's primary sector. This is due to all governance issues being deemed as 'Relevant' for all sectors. However, materiality of governance issues may be applied in the future.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Stakeholder Engagement

This Aspect focuses on engagement activities across a wide range of stakeholders. The Aspect assesses the entity's stakeholder engagement program, including actions taken to engage with those stakeholders and to characterize the nature of engagement.

There are 6 indicators in the Aspect and all are scored, except for SE4. The maximum number of points is 10.4 and this corresponds to 10.4% of the GRESB Score.

2.6 points , MP, G

Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

2.6 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Three Section Indicator. Section 2 is for reporting examples of actions and contains a table. The score of the section is calculated using Diminishing Increase in Scoring based on the number of rows of data reported with 4 rows of data being required to achieve the maximum score. Each row or action provided must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

SE1 focusses on whether a Stakeholder Engagement Programme is in place and SE2 focusses on actions taken to implement that Stakeholder Engagement Programme. As these indicators are linked, an Integrity Cross Check is applied within scoring. Therefore, a participant cannot receive points for SE2, unless they receive points for SE1.

2.6 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2018.

1.3 points , MP, G

Diminishing Increase in Score approach: As indicated by the blue line, the subsection is scored based on a Diminishing Increase in Score approach, per additional checkbox selected.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.65
Not accepted/not provided 0.3

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

1.3 points , IM, G

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Performance Indicators

The intent of this Aspect is to assess the entity's ESG performance in relation to data capture and reporting for a set of standard infrastructure performance metrics.

Aspect score

Overall, this Aspect corresponds to 30.2% of the GRESB Score. There are 8 indicators within the Performance Indicator section and all are scored, except PI1 (for reporting purposes only). PI 2-8 are all scored in different ways.

PI 2-8 are all scored indicators and by default, have a default equal indicator value (maximum score). However, the weighting of each indicator varies through the influence of Materiality Based Scoring (see below) based on the entity's primary sector.

Materiality Based Scoring

The weighting for each Performance Indicator is influenced by the sector specific materiality assessment in MA2 (i.e. is driven by the primary sector for your entity). Where this issue/indicator is deemed 'Not relevant' for a sector, then the indicator will not be scored. Where an issue/indicator is deemed 'Relevant', then the indicator will receive standard weighting. Where the issue/indicator is deemed 'Highly relevant' then the indicator will be weighted double the standard weighting. The overall weighting for the Performance Indicator aspect is 30.2%. This weighting is spread across the 'Relevant' and 'Highly relevant' Performance Indicators in proportion to their materiality.

Indicator score

Each indicator consists of two sections; section 1 containing a table for inputting performance metrics and section 2 containing an open text box response. For all indicators, the tables (& 'Yes' response) have a total weighting of 90% and the open text box has 10%.

For the first section of PI 3-8, the indicator/figures reported in each row is validated and if it is not accepted the corresponding row score is set to 0. Finally, the score for the table is calculated by taking the sum of all the row scores, which are numbers between 0 and 1, with an upper limit of 1 so that if the sum is greater than 1 the score for the table will be set to 1. Responses to zero (0) inputs will be assessed in validation alongside allowances specified in the GRESB Infrastructure Asset Reference Guide.

Inputs are scored based on transparency and being able to track/report, and not based on performance levels.

Each row in the indicator tables is split into the below three sections. The impact and weightings of these sections vary per indicator.

Further details on scoring are explained for each indicator in the sections below.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 2/2
Partial points 1/2
No point 0

Output

2017 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2018.

Health & Safety

2017 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, S

This indicator consists of 3 tables, which all receive a score between 0 to 1. The table section is comprised 50% by the score of Employees table, 25% by the score of Contractors table and 25% by the score for Customers & Community table.

Row scores:

  • Table 1 – Employees: Row score = 0.1 × Baseline score + 0.15 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

  • Table 2 – Contractors: Row score = 0.1 × Baseline score + 0.15 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score
  • Table 3 – Customers & Community: Row score = 0.1 × Baseline score + 0.3 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

Note: The maximum Baseline Score is 0.1, therefore the participant is only required to enter baseline data for one metric to receive maximum baseline points. The maximum Target Score is 0.3, therefore the participant is only required to enter target data (either Long Term or 2017) for one metric. The maximum Performance Score (2017) is 0.6.

Logic behind weightings for Employees and Contractors tables:

  • Scoring of the tables is considered overall (i.e. not on isolated row basis).
  • 60% of table score should be obtained if performance data (2017) is provided for 4x of the defined metrics.
  • 10% score can be obtained for reporting baseline data.
  • 30% score can be obtained for reporting target data.
  • As there is a cap on baseline and target scores, then performance data (2017) for all 4 metrics is required to achieve maximum points for these tables.

Example scoring combination (Employees and Contractors table):

  • One complete row: 0.55 points.
  • Performance data only for all 4 metrics: 0.6 points.
  • Performance data only for 2 metrics: 0.3 points.
  • Performance data for only 2 metrics plus baseline data for 1 (or more) metrics: 0.4 points.

Logic behind weightings for Customers and Community tables:

  • Scoring of the tables is considered overall (i.e. not on isolated row basis).
  • 60% of table score should be obtained if performance data (2017) is provided for 2x of the defined metrics.
  • 10% score can be obtained for reporting baseline data.
  • 30% score can be obtained for reporting target data.
  • As there is a cap on baseline and target scores, then performance data (2017) for all 2 metrics is required to achieve maximum points for these tables.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Energy & Emissions

2017 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 1 table which receives a score between 0 to 1. The table considers 4 key areas: a. Energy Imported, b. Energy Generated, c. Energy Consumed and d. Energy Exported. For all key metrics (except energy consumed) there are two rows each, being Total and Renewable, and the maximum score can be achieved by reporting on either of these two rows.

Row score = 0.1 × Baseline score + 0.15 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

Note: The maximum Baseline Score is 0.1, therefore the participant is only required to enter baseline data for one metric to receive maximum points. The maximum Target Score is 0.3, therefore the participant is only required to enter target data (either long-term or 2017) for one metric. This applies to any target row reported on. The maximum Performance Score is 0.6.

The table contains 7 rows. Energy Imported, Energy Generated and Energy Exported contain two rows each, including a 'Total' and 'Renewable' row. Energy consumed only contains one 'Total' row. In 2018, only the 'Total' rows are to be scored, not 'renewable' rows.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 1 table which receives a score between 0 to 1. Each metric has a different weighting, that differs across 2 different scoring profiles (relating to sectors). The scoring profiles are 1. Renewable energy assets and 2. All other sectors (excluding renewable energy assets). The scoring profile that applies for 'Renewable Energy Assets' is determined by the participants response to RC4 (i.e. if a participants Primary Sector is 'Renewable generation, utility scale' and/or 'Renewable generation, distributed').

Scoring profile 1: Renewable energy assets

Metric Performance (60% score) Baseline (10% score) Targets (30% score)
Scope 1 0.04 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Scope 2 0.04 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Scope 3 0.04 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Total GHG emissions 0.00 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Emissions avoided 0.44 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
On-site offsets 0.00 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Offsets purchased 0.00 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Net GHG 0.04 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Total 0.60 points 0.10* points 0.30* points

* The maximum Baseline Score is 0.10 and maximum Target Score is 0.3, therefore the participant is only required to enter target data (either Long-term or 2017) for one metric respectively. However, this one metric can only be selected from one of a. Scope 1 emissions, b. Scope 2 emissions, c. Total GHG emissions, d. Emissions avoided or e. Net GHG emissions. I.e. if they report baseline or target for any other metrics (i.e. Scope 3) then they receive no points. The maximum Performance Score is 0.6.

Scoring profile 2: All Other Sectors (excluding renewable energy assets)

Metric Performance (60% score) Baseline (10% score) Targets (30% score)
Scope 1 0.19 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Scope 2 0.19 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Scope 3 0.10 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Total GHG emissions 0.00 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Emissions avoided 0.00 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
On-site offsets 0.04 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Offsets purchased 0.04 points 0.00* points 0.00* points
Net GHG 0.04 points 0.10* points 0.30* points
Total 0.60 points 0.10* points 0.30* points

* The maximum Baseline Score is 0.1 and Target Score is 0.3, therefore you are only required to enter baseline and/or data for one metric to receive maximum points respectively. However, this one metric can only be selected from one of a. Scope 1 emissions, or b. Scope 2 emissions, or c. Net GHG emissions, or d. Total GHG emissions. I.e. if they report baseline or target for any other metrics then they receive no points. The maximum Performance Score is 0.6.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 1 table, which is scored as a standard performance indicator table. Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

Note: Unlike the other PI indicators, there is no ‘maximum cap’ on baseline and/or target score. Target data may be for either Long Term or 2017.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Water & Waste

2017 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 3 tables, all of which are scored as performance indicator tables. The table section is comprised 50% by the score of the Consumption table, 25% by the score of Withdrawals table and 25% by the score of the Discharged table.

Row scores:

  • Consumption table: Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score*
  • * Baseline & Target scores can only be obtained from Consumption Row and not Evaporation and losses row or Other row (i.e. these rows can only get 0.5 points for performance).

  • Withdrawals table: Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score
  • Discharged table: Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score
  • ** Note: For Withdrawals and Discharged tables, there is no ‘maximum cap’ on baseline and/or target score.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 2 tables, all of which are scored as performance indicator tables. The score for the indicator is the average of the 2 table scores.

For both tables: Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

Note: For both tables, there is no ‘maximum cap’ on baseline and/or target score.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Biodiversity & Habitat

2017 Indicator

Determined by materiality , IM, E

This indicator consists of 2 tables, all of which are scored as performance indicator tables. Each table is worth equal points.

Wildlife table: Row score = 0.2 × Baseline score + 0.5 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score

Note: For the Wildlife table, there is no ‘maximum cap’ on baseline and/or target score.

Habitat Management table: Row score = 0.1 × Baseline score + 0.15 × Performance score + 0.3 × Target score.

Note: For the Habitat Management table, the maximum Baseline Score is 0.1, therefore the participant is only required to enter baseline data for one metric to receive maximum points. The maximum Target Score is 0.3, therefore the participant is only required to enter target data (either LT or 2017) for one metric. The maximum Performance Score is 0.6.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Full points 1
Partial points 0.5
No point 0

Certifications & Awards

This Aspect focuses on the entity's achievement and/or maintenance of ESG related certifications.

There are 2 indicators in the Aspect and only CA1 is scored. The maximum number of points is 2.5 and this corresponds to 2.5% of the GRESB Score.

Certifications

2017 Indicator

2.5 points , IM, G

This indicator is scored as a Three Section Indicator. Section 2 is for reporting asset-level certifications and contains a table. If any certifications are reported in the table the maximum score is achieved, otherwise the score is 0.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Validation status Score
Accepted 1
Partially accepted 0.5
Not accepted/not provided 0

Awards

2017 Indicator

Not scored

This indicator is not scored in 2018.

GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessment - Materiality Assessment

Materiality