Download PDF

2018

Fund

Scoring Document

Contents

Document preface:

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

Each indicator presented in the GRESB Infrastructure Fund Scoring Document is presented in a consistent manner to reflect the 2018 GRESB Infrastructure Fund 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: Fund 1 indicator:

The total score of Fund 1 amounts to 10 points (p). These 10p are split between:

Example 2: Fund 5 indicator:

Total score of Fund 5 amounts to 5 points (p). These 5p 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

Fund Scoring Concepts

The GRESB Fund Score is calculated based on a combination of the Fund Score and the Weighted Average Asset(WAA Score. This is calculated based on the following formula:

GRESB Score = (0.3 X Fund Score) + (0.7 X WAA Score)

Additional information on fund scoring:

Fund Score: All participants receive a Fund Score. The Fund Assessment contains 11 different ESG indicators which generate the Fund Score. All 11 indicators in the Fund Assessment are weighted as follows:

Indicator Weight
(% Overall Score)
Fund 1 - Sustainable Investment Objectives 10%
Fund 2 - ESG Policies 10%
Fund 3 - ESG Commitments 10%
Fund 4 - Implementation Responsibility 5%
Fund 5 - Senior Decision Maker 5%
Fund 6 - Assessment of ESG Risks & Opportunities 10%
Fund 7 - Monitoring of ESG Risks & Opportunities 10%
Fund 8 - Analysis of Asset Performance 10%
Fund 9 - ESG Disclosure 10%
Fund 10 - Third-party Review 10%
Fund 11 - ESG-related Misconduct, Penalties, Incidents 10%

Weighted Average Asset (WAA) Score: All participants reporting in the Fund Assessment list the assets they invest in and provide an asset weight (out of overall portfolio) for each of these investments. If at least 25% weight is assigned to assets which reported to GRESB in the 2018 Asset Assessment, then the entity receives a WAA Score. The WAA Score is a weighted average of the asset scores of all assets listed by the fund in the table. Non-reporting assets, or assets with pending connection links (i.e. not confirmed), will be counted as having an asset score of zero (0). The asset weight (%) used in this calculation is the same as the weighting reported by the fund in indicator A1 (table).

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 Fund 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.

Fund Management & Investment Process

Policies & Objectives

2017 Indicator

10 points

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.

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

10 points

Points are awarded based on the whether the policies are publicly available (1x multiple) or not publicly available (0.75x multiple). The below evidence multiplier is then applied.

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

10 points

This indicator is split into two subsections, addressing General ESG commitments and then Issue-specific commitments. A greater weighting has been applied to the first subsection. Not all checkboxes are required to be selected to receive full points for a subsection.

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.

Leadership & Accountability

2017 Indicator

5 points

No evidence is required for this indicator.

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

5 points

No evidence is required for this indicator.

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.

Risks & Opportunities

2017 Indicator

10 points

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.

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

10 points

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.

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

10 points

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.

ESG Disclosure

2017 Indicator

10 points

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 (three reporting levels - Entity, Investment manager or business unit, 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.

10 points

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 Fund 9 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 Fund 9 (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.

10 points

No evidence is required for this indicator.

The last subsection addressing 'communication of misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents' is not scored.

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

Summary of Entity Assets

This section shows the link between the reporting entity (Fund) and the underlying investments. The table shows details of the investment types, such as weightings assigned to specific investments, sectors and the nature of investments.

Summary of Entity Assets

233 points

Scoring

No points are awarded for completing the table. However, completion of the table is mandatory for all participants.

In order to receive a GRESB Score in the Fund Assessment, then at least 25% weight needs to be assigned to assets which reported and submitted to GRESB in the 2018 Asset Assessment. Once this threshold is met, then the entity receives a Weighted Average Asset (WAA) Score. The WAA Score is a weighted average of the asset scores of all assets listed by the fund in the table. Non-reporting assets, or assets with pending connection links (i.e. not confirmed) will be counted as having an asset score of 0. The weighting used in the calculation is the same as the weighting reported by the fund in the table of indicator A1.

This WAA Score is then combined with the Fund Score to calculate the overall GRESB Score.